Agriculture, FDA Appropriations, Child Care Scams, Ghost Student Aid, TANF Fraud

good afternoon the committee will come to order without objection the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time today the rules committee is convening to consider four measures hr eighty six forty six hr seventy seven twenty six hr seventy eight ninety two and hr eighty eight seventy two hr eighty six forty six the agricultural rural development food and drug administration and related agencies appropriations act say that fast twice provides a total discretionary allocation of twenty six point twenty seven billion dollars which is one point four percent below the fiscal year twenty twenty-six enacted level. This legislation is not only physically responsible, but it also puts the dedicated producers across our nation as well as American consumers first. From securing the nation's supply of food and drugs to supporting hard-working Americans in rural communities, protecting access to nutrition programs for low-income Americans to ensuring federal programs meet their core functions, this legislation has a broad and impactful reach. I look forward to hearing more about its positive impacts and its contours during our discussion here today. H. R. seventy-six twenty-six, the Stop the Child Care Scams Act, is a collection of eight separate pieces of legislation explicitly designed to strike down fraud, strengthen oversight, and shield taxpayer dollars in federal child care assistance programs. All eight follow a simple principle, money meant for children and working families should not be lost to fraud or waste. Those who perpetuate fraud oper Fraud operate with the utmost callousness. They do not care who they hurt, and they do not care about the pain they inflict on those who they target. Every dollar that is snatched away by fraud is a dollar that cannot be used by a working parent to provide care for a child or put food on the table. These bills help seal the gaps that have allowed fraud in child care assistance programs to flow uncon unconfronted. They set clear standards and they ensure that accountability is always treated as the rule and not the exception. H R seventy-eight ninety-two, the No Aid for Ghosts Students Act of twenty twenty-six weeds out and deters fraudsters who attempt to corrupt the FAFSA application process through the use of stolen or entirely identities. FAFSA needs serious com- comprehensive reform. That much is abundantly clear. This legislation is part of that reform, and it provides a necessary injection of accountability that will protect the tax dollars of Americans and ensure that aid to students in need is not siphoned away through cracks in the program. H R eighty-eight seventy-two, the preventing waste, fraud and abuse in TANF Act would reduce federal TANF funds to supplement, not supplant, state and local spending. This prohibits states from using federal TANF funds to replace state or local funds that otherwise would be available for similar services. TANF's lack of internal guardrails has made the program easy to abuse. That must be changed. With few guardrails on state spending, it's unclear whether resources are actually going to low-income Mm-hmm. families and having the desired impact on get or getting abused by fraudsters. This legislation works to solve this issue and protect the access to assistance for low-income families that truly need it. I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses here today and the forthcoming conversations. we'll have about the measures before us. With that, I now yield to the ranking member for any comments he wishes to make.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, and this week, Republicans will say they are cracking down on waste, fraud and abuse. Give me a break. Uh, we all want taxpayer dollars to go where they belong. But somehow, Republicans only seem to find fraud when the target is working people. Uh, they see fraud when a struggling mom needs food assistance. When a family needs help paying for child care. When a student needs financial aid. But when Donald Trump and his family make billions off crypto schemes, insider access, and government contracts? Silence. The TANF bill fails to lower costs for those who need it. Instead, it gives the Trump administration vague new authority that could make it harder for families to get help and easier to punish states that he doesn't like. The child care bill? doesn't make child care more affordable. It's just more paperwork, more red tape, and more excuses. And the student aid bill lets the Secretary of Education freeze aid based solely on a barely tested system. And CBO says it saves the taxpayers nothing. And then there's this agriculture bill. I mean, I serve on the Agriculture Committee. I care deeply about farmers, rural America, and ending hunger in this country. And this bill fails all three. Farmers and rural communities are hurting. Families are getting clobbered at the grocery store. That's Trump's economy. Because of his tariffs and his war, grocery bills are up, energy costs are up, inflation is up. And what is the Republican answer? Cut WIC. I mean, to be clear, WIC helps pregnant women and postpartum moms. It helps babies and little kids. It helps families buy healthy food. It connects families to health care and nutrition support. It's one of the most successful public health programs in America. And the Republicans wanna cut it. This bill would force eligible families to be turned away from WIC for the first time in thirty years. Just think about that. And it doesn't stop there. This bill cuts fruit and vegetable benefits, not junk food, but fruits and vegetables. I mean, we hear a lot from this administration about make America healthy again. Well, what the hell is going on here? The maha commission's report praises wick. It says wick supports healthier moms and kids. It says wick helps families buy fruits and vegetables. It says wick improves children's health. So which is it? Do y- do you wanna make America healthy again? Or is that just another slogan? Do you want kids to eat healthier? Or do you wanna take away their fruits and vegetables? This bill is a betrayal of everything maha claims to stand for. And while Republicans take food away from babies, this bill also cuts conservation, rural development, clean water, broadband, energy, and small business support. It slashes Food for Peace, a life-saving program that feeds people facing famine uh though uh all around the world, and it supports American farmers um here at home. Again, I mean, look at the priorities. Republicans have money for billionaires, big corporations, slush funds, and vanity projects. But for pregnant women, little kids, farmers, rural towns, and hungry people, well, that's that's waste, fraud and abuse. So spare us the lectures about fiscal responsibility. This is about who they think matters. And the people at the top always get protected, uh, and everyone else gets screwed. And with that, I yield back.

Thank you, Mister McGovern. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our first panel, Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Bishop, from the Committee on Appropriations. Your full statement will be submitted for the record and we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Harris, I welcome your testimony.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Uh, Ranking Member Govert and members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the FY twenty-seven Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and related agencies appropriation bill. I wanna thank Appropriations Committee Chairman Cole for his leadership in moving the appropriations process forward. I also wanna recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Ms. DiLoro, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mister Bishop, for their help in getting us to this point. Mister Bishop and I have had some good conversations throughout this process, and I'm pleased that the bill received bipartisan support out of the committee. We wanna keep working with the minority as we move forward. For fiscal year FY twenty-seven, as the - as the, uh, chairlady said, the agriculture bill's discretionary allocation is twenty-six point two seven billion a three hundred and eighty million or one point four percent decrease from the FY twenty-six enacted level. Everyday American is - is impacted by this bill as we all depend on a safe food and drug supply overseen by both the USDA and the Food and Drug Administration. The bill targets funding to critical programs by supporting rural communities, providing US provi- uh, producers with the tools they need to feed, fuel, and clothe the world, and ensuring that all Americans who qualify for assistance through nutri- nutrition programs like WIC, SNAP, and school meals will be served. This legislation reflects a clear and necessary commitment to fiscal responsibility, while ensuring that America's farmers, ranchers, and rural communities remain a top priority. I look forward to working with all of you as this bill moves forward. Again, I want to thank you for considering amendments to this bill from members on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate your time and the opportunity to testify today, and I yield back.

Ladies and gentlemen, there should be a record.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, uh, Chair Fox, Ranking Member McGovern, members of the committee, uh, let me thank, uh, also, uh, uh, Chairman Cole, Ranking Member DeLar, and Chairman Harris for the constructive conversations that we have had Uh, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the importance of funding the agencies within this bill. Uh, the Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA and related agencies, uh, bill is of vital importance to, uh, farmers and rural communities across the nation. The programs and the workers that we fund through this bill affect the lives of every single American every single day. Uh, it's about the food our families eat. for our rural communities, our entrepreneurs and agricultural producers. It's about the safety of our medicines and medical devices, and the cutting edge resource research uh that's needed to ensure that America will continue to produce the highest quality and the safest and most abundant, uh and the most affordable food and fiber anywhere in the world. Uh that's why it is with great disappointment that I have to express my opposition to the bill before you today. Uh, overall the bill provides a four percent reduction below the FY twenty-six interactive levels driven largely by cuts that will hurt our families and our farmers. Uh, the bill would reduce the resources available to combat hunger in America by cutting two hundred million dollars from the special supplemental nutrition program for women infants and children known as WIC, uh, and by not funding the fruit and vegetable vouchers recommended by the National Academy of Sciences. engineering and medicine. And you've heard about Food for Peace and the other programs. Uh, that means that ninety-five percent of women, infants and children, for example, in Doctor Harris's home state of Maryland, uh, will not receive their full fruit and vegetable requirements, as established by the National Academy of Sciences. Uh, Mister Harris is a big proponent of making America healthy again. Uh, I too want to make America healthy again. But in my own state of Georgia, a hundred and eighty-five thousand women, infants and children uh are left asking the question uh that under this bill, and of course not only are they asking it, but inquiring minds everywhere wanna know how on earth does this reduced funding, uh make America healthy again. And in this tough farming economy, uh ag producers in rural America need our help now more than they ever did. Uh, seventy-six percent of agricultural economists uh say that the crop sector is in a recession and seventy-four percent of the ag producers agree. Uh, farm income is forecast to decline by four point one billion dollars from last year, according to USDA's own economists. Uh, I know that ag producers have spoken to me and my staff, are concerned about closed or understaffed USDA offices and the hemorrhaging of experienced federal workers who knew how to provide them the assistance that they need. Yet, this bill cuts staff at the agencies that our farmers and ranchers rely on the most, the Farm Service Agency, the Rural Development Agency, and the National uh Resource Conservation Service. Uh, the bill also cuts water and wastewater grants nearly in half. for the smallest and low-tax-based rural communities in yours and my districts. Uh, we have a rural, we have rural neighbors still living with clay pipes and without access to uh adequate sewer service. That makes no sense. I'm also disappointed that the majority is once again offering poison-pure riders that have nothing to do with how our ag producers keep the country fed and clothed with the highest quality and the most abundant and the most affordable food and fiber in the world. In fact, these riders simply take the focus away from agriculture and distract us from the real issues that face us every day. Uh, we can do better. Let's make sure that we don't leave our stakeholders, the stakeholders who are depending upon us in funding this bill, that we don't leave them behind, especially as they face the higher cost for food, higher cost for fuel, higher cost for housing, high cost for medical care in this Trump economy. Uh the bill does not meet the moment, it does not do what is needed for the American people, uh and for that reason I cannot support it. I hope that by the end of this process that we will come up with a product that we can all be happy with and that will serve the needs of the American people. Uh you're back.

Thank you, Mister Bishop. I'm gonna defer my questions until later, Miss Fischbach. you're recognized

thank you madam chair and and um mister harris could you just give me some idea uh uh your i appreciate your testimony was short and uh and to the point and so i appreciate that but i'm just curious if you could give me some information on how this really does uh support our farmers particularly in um difficult time right now with you know we've got input cost that are high and all kinds of things going on and so Um if you if you have some a little more information on that that would be be interested in hearing it.

Sure. So uh we you know what what we did is in this bill is uh we uh deliver on the product starting the moment you get a case, take out one and meet with uh the uh after the uh profit still.

uh, delivered what the farmers need and where the, uh, some of which goes on in, uh -

Some of which goes on in - in, uh - in every agency, and the USDA is no exception. Again, you know, we - we have a two trillion dollar deficit. We have a, uh, forty trillion dollar federal debt. And, uh, I believe that a one point four percent modest decrease from last year's uh enacted level, again, by doing things like restricting uh reap grants but allowing reap loans, you know, a billion dollars in uh reap loans. Uh, things like that that uh that just make sense going forward in the in the uh era of fiscal uncertainty. Uh, but again, in terms of what the farmers are gonna see, they're gonna see uh the crop insurance that they need, they're gonna see the protection they need, they're gonna see the conservation services they need, uh you know this administration is delivering for the farmers you know what what they're gonna need going forward

thank you very much and i and i appreciate that uh there are some uh we're eliminating some programs that uh you know like the conservation corps that we can or we can save some dollars and it and i appreciate your comments on the um on the modest cut but yet it's still a a decrease um and when you mention the um when you mention the deficit that we're dealing with we absolutely do need to we need to be looking at spending less money plain and simple and so i appreciate that you've done this um in this bill and um i'll be supporting the bill and with that i yield back

thank you very much.

much mr. mcgovern you're recognized

uh thank you uh chairman harris you're a medical doctor correct

uh yes i am

and you're the person responsible for assembling the agriculture appropriations bill right right

Yes, I am.

So I assume, given that you're a doctor and you oversee the program at the appropriations committee, um, that you are very familiar with the long-term health benefits associated with participation in WIC.

Uh, yes, I am.

Uh, I mean, the US, on the USDA web site it says, " WIC is a program for pregnant and new moms, babies and young kids. It improves birth outcomes, results in fewer infant deaths, uh, reduces health care costs improves diet improves cognitive development and more um and um so chairman harris that's why i'm a little bit confused here i mean so the bill that you're bringing before the rules committing uh right now cuts WIC by two hundred million dollars like why would why would you do that

because the participation rate is lower

well

it's very simple the participation rate is lower isn't it mister chairman are you aware of that

yeah no i i i know i know i i i know that there are lot of families

mister bank member i'm sorry you're aware of that Are you aware that the participation rate is lower?

It it may be because of all the red tape that you guys are putting in place to make it more difficult for people. But the but the reality is, uh, I mean, at a time when hunger is at an all-time high in this country. Forty-eight million people are hungry. Many of them are children. So don't tell me that there's few there's the need for WIC is less. Um, it i- it in fact it i- it is more.

Can I answer can I answer the question and give you exact figures?

Yes, you can.

The FY twenty-five Uh, total f- uh, is six point eight six three million people, and F y twenty six so far is six point seven four six.

Yeah.

That's a lower number.

Yeah.

You don't need as much to fund the program if there are fewer participants in the program.

Y- w- and that and that is and that is kind of the rationale that you guys use when you cut snap, uh, and basically saying that, uh, you know, fewer people, uh, you know, are in the program, probably because you're throwing them off because people can't, uh, can't get their can't get their phone calls returned from the appropriate, uh, departments and, uh, But, uh, are you aware that hunger is at forty-eight million people in this country,

Well,

or no?

well, mister ranking member, uh, you said that we don't fund working families. Let me tell you something, if you work, you're getting WIC. What we did in one big beautiful bill, and said if you're able-bodied and you're not taking care of a young person, or an adult, or a disabled person, and you choose not to work an average of twenty hours a week, or train, or volunteer, you are not gonna get another taxpayer to pay for your SNAP benefit.

OK.

Well the WIC aso- the WIC aso- the WIC association says -

So yes, we do have fun people who work. It's people who don't work we don't fun.

the WIC association says that what you are doing is going to result in uh even fewer people being able to get um, get WIC, the people will be thrown off the benefit. That's what the WIC association says. I - I - you maybe, I don't know if you - you've talked to them, uh, but I - I - I would uh - I would point out that uh that's what they're saying, and uh - and you also cut the fruit and vegetable uh, you know, uh, uh, uh, benefits. Why - why would you do that?

You - you mean the COVID era benefit?

Yeah, I mean, do you don't think that they're of a value?

It's a it's a COVID era benefit.

Yeah.

And perhaps perhaps the people who are so interested in in uh maintaining that benefit would actually support cutting sugary beverages a ten billion dollar cost to the snack industry because I noticed the ranking member voted against

Yeah.

that amendment on the farm bill so the ranking member wants to have sugary beverages,

Yeah. But I I I

Mm-hmm.

but it's OK, we'll give ten billion dollars in sugary beverages, but we will have a little bit of vegetables. And that's and that's the solution to healthcare.

I I I I I I I I I I Oh, so you don't you don't believe we should be incentivizing people to buy fruits and vegetables.

No, we should be not disincentivizing people to buy sugary beverages.

No, I mean, I mean, that that that that is what you're doing with this. Like,

Well, no, if we take

again, a- a- again, children are gonna lose their benefits,

Uh, uh, can I answer the question?

people are gonna be No, um, let me finish my question, please.

I think you uh you finished the question.

Yeah. No, I I didn't. I I will say to you I'm done when I'm done.

No, no.

Uh, I'll I'm anxiously awaited.

Um, but I mean, if we get fewer, if fewer people are gonna be able to get this benefit, pe- people are gonna lose this benefit. Fewer people are gonna have access to fresh fruits and vegetables. You know, I I just don't understand, you know, like how this is somehow in sync with make America healthy again.

Because, uh, are you done, are you gonna you're gonna say you're finished,

Yes, I'm you're

OK. Ten billion dollars is spent in S- in SNAP for sugary beverages. Ten billion dollars.

What does that have to do with WIC?

Fifty percent. Fifty per- Can I finish my answer?

Oh, go ahead.

Fifty percent of the WIC beneficiaries are on snap those fifty percent can take the money that they're not spending on sugary beverages and spend it somewhere else in a grocery store so maybe they will spend it in the fruit and vegetable section maybe we can incentivize that but it's interesting that the ranking member voted against removing sugary beverages from the snap program but is upset that we want to modestly dial back a covid era wick program

yeah Right.

Mister Ranking Member, COVID is over.

Yeah. Well, you know, the the health crisis is not over.

I I will back you.

Hunger is not over. In fact, hunger is getting worse. Have you been to a grocery store lately? Do you see how prices are going up? The people can't afford the most basic items, uh, never mind nutritious food, uh, gas is through the roof, everything is through the roof. Uh, and again, hunger is at forty eight million people in this country. Um, and again, uh, the response by my friends, uh, on the Republican side is not to do anything to find a solution to end hunger it's to it's to it's to make it even worse and i wanna tell you that if you're talking about saving money cause i think that's all that you guys wanna talk about is saving money investing in programs like wick investing in the fruit and vegetable program saves money and i'll tell you how uh how it saves money because it results in babies growing up to be um healthier uh adults it results in people developing habits uh and getting access to nutritious food that will keep them healthy through their life um and instead we're going in the right direction and i guess i guess the deal is i mean you know you guys are ok with spending a billion and a half dollars a day for an illegal war uh in iran uh i mean i mean when you talk about deficit and and debt i'm i'm just stunned by the fact that nobody on your side complained about the cost of the tax cuts for multimillionaires and billionaires they added trillions so you have a problem with so you're so you have no problem with spending money to to you know bomb people um and you have no problem spending money um on tax breaks but when it comes to feeding hungry people making sure that kids get a healthy start you know all of a sudden we have a problem so i don't know how the hell that's america first wic has historically had strong bipartisan support um and that's something that you know i i've been proud of uh trump's own maha report says wic has a proven track record of improving children's health pregnancy outcomes and an increase in fruit and vegetable consumption that that those are those that's trump's you know administration saying that trump's budget cuts wick i still can't figure that out and your bill the bill that you're asking uh uh uh as to send to the floor also cuts wick again i think it's a betrayal of the maha movement um and so i guess my final question to you mr. chairman is why are republicans in congress and this administration walking back their support for maha

I don't I don't understand the question. I reject the basis of the question.

Well, do you know what my high, do you know what my high is?

We aren't. For instance, for instance as you know, I'm I'm a strong supporter of cutting sugar b- sugary beverages.

Yeah.

I have snap.

I I y- y-

Look,

You you know what my high is?

r- mister ranking member, you and I are gonna disagree on that.

You you know what my high is?

You want sugary beverages and snap. I don't.

Yeah, but

You want junk foods and snap.

We're not talking about snap right now.

I don't. You want ultra-processed foods and junk food.

We're not talking about snap right now.

I don't.

We're talking about a fruit and vegetable benefit, and we're talking about WIC. And so I guess the question is, I'm I I'm I'm I'm assuming you're familiar with MAHA, right, or not?

I am gonna go back, if I can answer the question,

Yeah.

I'm gonna go back to my original figures. The participation rate for WIC is down. Therefore, you don't need to appropriate as much money.

The WIC is The WIC association is telling us that this will result in people not getting the benefits they need.

And the WIC association makes their money out of out of out of lobbying for WIC.

And so, so who, so so who do I believe?

So you support the lobbyists. I get it, Mister McCullough,

Who do I who who am I supposed to believe?

you support the lobbyists.

The the man in the White House who's who's who wants a billion dollars for a uh for a for a ballroom?

I understand it. I support the figures that show that WIC participation rate is down.

The man the man the man

Don't talk over each other's ears.

Yeah.

The WIC participation rate is down.

So

Do you argue with the figures?

Yeah, I I what I'm arguing what I'm what I what I'm saying is the demand is greater than than than you are acknowledging here. But I'm I'm but you're asking me to believe the guy who um is you know is making billions of dollars off the american taxpayer um you know we're supposed to trust him that he knows about wick as he is policing the american taxpayer i mean how about a little how about less money for tax cuts for billionaires and let's put it toward making sure that um struggling families can give their kids a healthy start so look it there's no way i would support a bill like this no way i would and i think anybody who supports a bill that cuts wick by two hundred million dollars especially now especially now when hunger is at an all-time high and food prices are through the roof. Um, you know, go home and explain that to your constituents. Uh, you're back.

Mister McGovern, Mister Scott, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I just um would point out to anybody who's watching this that total tax revenue for twenty twenty-five was five point two four trillion dollars, if I'm not mistaken. Is that your understanding, Mister Harris?

That's right.

Is that the highest tax collection we've ever had in the history of the country?

That's that's right. And that's what happens when you cut taxes,

And what

tax revenues actually go up.

Eco- economic growth matters. I mean, unfortunately the deficit is still too high. Um, and we have to we have to hold the line on spending. In fact, I would tell you that tax revenues are a trillion dollars higher today than they were just five years ago. And if we had held the line on spending, uh, we wouldn't have a two trillion dollar deficit. We might still have a deficit. but it wouldn't be two trillion dollars. Um, I wanna, I wanna go back to, um, an issue that you mentioned, and, and this gets brought up a lot on the cuts, if you will. And with, with regard to SNAP, SNAP stands for Supplemental Nutritional Assistance program, correct? Supplemental Nutritional Assistance.

That, that's right, nutrition is the middle name.

Being the word. And, um, and I, and I will tell you, I mean, one of the better things I think we did in the form bill that we sent to allow rotisserie chicken i mean they're things that we can certainly do better uh for people there is healthier food out there that is that is cheaper than some of the things that you can buy uh with snap benefits today but uh i wanna i wanna read this language from um going back to uh as we as we talk about snap so so we exempted people correct me if i'm wrong if you work twenty hours more per week average monthly if you participate in and comply with the requirements for work program for twenty hours or more per week as determined by the state agency not a federal agency, the state agency, then you are exempt from the work requirements is with SNAP, is that correct?

That's correct.

The and then it says um the work requirements also do not apply to an individual if the individual is under eighteen or over sixty-five years of age, medically certified as physically or mentally unfit for employment, a parent or other member of a household where they're responsibility for a dependent child under fourteen years of age, um, a pregnant woman, there's some additional exemptions, but all of those exemptions are current law as passed by Republicans. Is that correct from the work requirements?

Ah, that's right. That was part of the one big beautiful bill. That's right.

Yep. And this bill does nothing to change that. We leave those exemptions in place for work requirements.

Uh, absolutely. If you are work if you're an able-bodied worker, you're not taking care of a disabled person, young person, and old person, and you're not pregnant, and you're not disabled yourself, you are expected to work an average of twenty hours a week or volunteer or train. That's correct. That's all we're asking.

So, uh So, is that's right, and it's good policy.

That's a very good policy.

I- i- it's it's good for us. It's also good to get people back to work. I think work is healthy. Um, you know, as a as a member of the Ag Committee, one of the things that we watched over the last several years is that the the ratio of spending between uh snap or food and other food assistance and conservation and ag production and all of the other things that are funded through this bill had shifted from approximately seventy percent snap and food assistance to over eighty percent snap and food assistance because of the way the programs had been administered under the under the prior administration is that correct

That's right.

And so we we call it the farm bill and, um, it it is a food assistance bill as well, but the the what the what the previous administration did ha- has been to shift all of the assistance from from the American farmer to to SNAP and food benefits. And when we look at at what's happening with production agriculture today the American farmers are struggling. And, um, and they're extremely important to the food supply, and I will tell you that a, that a, and this came from my grandad, you know, but a, a, a country that can't feed itself, uh, isn't a free country. And, and I would just tell you I'm thankful that we have shifted back to providing, uh, significant support for the American farmers. I think that we are gonna have more work to do with, in combination with your, uh, committee and, and the house ag committee, but I'll I I don't have any further comments. Uh, I'll just if if you have any anything else you'd like to say, Mister Harris,

I I do I do.

um

One thing that's very significant in this bill is, uh, in the committee report we actually encouraged the secretary to investigate whether or not we should take that hundred billion dollars that we spend under SNAP and put in what essentially is a Buy American requirement, because that would be the largest infusion of money to our farmers would be actually to - to - to - to limit the ability to use that hundred billion dollars in SNAP on buying things grown or raised overseas. I mean, it would dwarf anything else we do for our farmers. And I hope that the secretary is able to, uh, to evaluate the ability to do that, that we can begin a limited Buy American program for SNAP and take some of that hundred billion dollars and sp- and put it where - where it should be most properly spent, which is with our food producers.

Well, I I can tell you America's food producers comply with a tremendous number of rules and regulations that don't apply to the food that is imported into this country.

That's abs- that's absolutely right,

And

and that and that's why we should we should investigate why we are subsidizing that uh that uh uh the the the lack of regulation in other countries that actually impairs our abilities of farmers to compete. And uh again, we should take the largest single program for farmer, for food, for food, food and and li- and uh uh you know, uh

I'm

livestock production thing, agriculture production, the largest single chunk is a hundred billion dollars in SNAP, and we have not said that - that we should prefer an American product. This is stunning to me, uh because as you point out, you know, we we're importing seafood from other countries where we don't know what's in them, we're not uh really doing good inspectors, this is something that we can do and we take a first step in this in this uh committee report

Mm-hmm. Ma- Madam Chair, before I I yield to you, uh and I certainly want to be respectful other times, I do want to point out that the American farmer today gets a smaller percentage of what the consumer spends at the grocery store than they ever have before. And that is one of the great challenges for uh America's agricultural producers today. Gentlemen, I appreciate both of you, I respect both of you a lot, and Madam Chair, I yield.

thank you mister scott

thank you

miss ganlin you're recognized

thank you i'll yield first to mister mcgovern

yeah i just have a news flash for you um you know as you're condemning all these nutrition programs um you know guess who grows the food for those nutrition programs i mean american farmers do um and and and and i want more american farmers to provide uh the food for our grocery stores and for our schools or anything else which is why i don't know why republican supported eliminating the farm to school program which actually helped a lot of a lot of local farmers in my state and in other states um uh because school local schools would buy from local farmers and put them in the school meals but you guys eliminated that um and you know uh and um and and again i i still don't understand the rationale behind eliminating the fruit and veggie vouchers again i mean i mean you know i mean that that helps american farmers um and the bottom line is uh going back to the wick program cause that's what we're talking about here today you know the the republican government shutdowns may be one of the reasons why uh the uh enrollment is not where where it needs to be but i'm gonna i i will guarantee you this given the way food prices are right now the demand is gonna go through the roof because people right now cannot afford their groceries and people are ending up buying more junk because you're eliminating all the incentives to buy locally grown you know fresh produce so i i i you know i i point that out because um i i i the gentleman always likes to get into this thing about oh we're spending all this money on snap and and wick but we're not spending it on on helping our farmers well you know what our farmers grow the food that actually support these programs um and i maybe you don't know that but i just wanted to pointed out i'm i mean i mean mister bishop i'm uh uh uh can i yield to mister bishop ok yeah go ahead

i appreciate this conversation uh and i fully support making america great again but i wanna point out that uh this bill and the big uh what my colleague calls the big beautiful bill i call it the big ugly bill really pits uh farmers against families and families against farmers i think that the nutrition is absolutely uh needed and if you just look at the priorities that have been set by this administration and being uh reinforced by this bill uh one week of the war in iran will fund the wit program for an entire year uh it makes no sense the priorities just all all all screwed up and i think that uh we need to recognize that these nutrition programs were set up and our support for agriculture and our farmers uh was really created uh so that they would work in tandem. Uh the food and the nutrition that families need and the the SNAP program and the WIG programs, uh they're very much needed but the farmers,

Right.

as uh the ranking member pointed out,

Yes.

are the ones that produce the food. If you don't produce the food you can't have the help, but the people should not have to uh struggle there shouldn't be a tug of war between the families who need food and the farmers

which is why i don't know why the fruit veggie vouchers were cut i yield to the thank the general aid for yielding

thank you i think this bill tells americans everything we need to know about republican priorities americans are struggling with the cost of living families are paying more for groceries for housing healthcare child care and as the war in iran enters its fourth month it has cost Americans nearly a hundred billion dollars, not to mention its impact on energy costs and gas for our cars. Yet instead of focusing on lowering costs for working families, Republicans are once again proposing cuts to programs that help Americans make ends meet. And nowhere is that more apparent than in the Republican attack on Wick. At a time when food costs are high and getting higher, This bill cuts funding for WIC by two hundred million dollars, and would force pregnant moms and kids off the program for the first time in thirty years. Now we've just heard a novel explanation for why the cut might be OK, because there's less participation. But if you talk to the folks who run the WIC programs, as I have twice in the last week, you will hear that the paperwork, not the work requirements, paperwork requirements in the big ugly bill are already kicking folks off SNAP and off WIC because they're related. So, um, you know, we see more need, but now we're going to have less dollars. Look, WIC is one of our most successful nutrition programs. It helps low-income mothers and infants and young kids access healthy food and nutrition education during some of the most important periods in their lives. When a new mother is trying to formula, milk, fruits, vegetables, and other basic necessities, WIC helps fill the gap. But here we are when families are struggling to buy groceries and gas. They're stretching every dollar. And the White House and Republicans looked at that situation and decided that assistance for pregnant women babies and kids was the place to cut. So think about what that means. The White House proposal would cut the allowance for fresh fruits and vegetables for a pregnant mom, from forty seven dollars a month to thirteen dollars a month and would cut the allowance for a child from twenty six dollars to ten dollars a month. So let's get a good look at what we're talking about here. This morning I went to a Head Start program in my district where they were educating families about the WIC program that provides farm market vouchers for healthy fruits and vegetables. So this morning a fa- local farmer came and delivered thirty dollars worth of fresh produce for each of the hundred and sixty kids at the school that's what this is right here this is one of the bags so it was three ears of corn three apples some beans and tomatoes a few potatoes a sweet potato some peppers and green onions that's it right here the kids were really excited about it they got to pick their favorite fruits and vegetables but under the cuts proposed by the white house the contents of this thirty dollar bag is all the produce that a mom and two kids would get for an entire month. I guarantee there are more crudités on the Mar-a-Lago salad bar than these kids are gonna see over the course of a month. At the same time that Republicans are cutting healthy food for infants and pregnant moms they're spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars for an illegal war in Iran and even more for immigration enforcement and corporate-run detention centers. Because our Republican colleagues can always find the money to pay for wars in private prisons, but not to help pregnant women and children eat healthy food. And it's not just, as we've heard, the pregnant moms and kids who suffered. These cuts are devastating to local farmers. That's how they get paid. They're already struggling with skyrocketing costs for fuel and fertilizer, and now face the loss of a market with families who used to be able to purchase produce with their WIC. vouchers. This bill also cuts rural development investments, cuts water, wastewater programs, cuts broad-band deployment, cuts rural energy programs, and continues a pattern of shrinking the federal workforce that supports farmers and rural communities. At a time when many farmers are facing economic uncertainty, rising costs, and the consequences of tariff policies that have disrupted their markets, Republicans are making additional cuts to programs that help rural America compete and thrive. The common thread running through all of these decisions is simple. Republicans are asking American families to sacrifice while the White House runs up deficits with foreign wars and tax cuts for billionaires. Um, Rep. Bishop, I understand this bill would um not allow us to cover all of the eligible families for WIC. And that is something that hasn't happened in decades. Can you talk about that a little bit? It underfunds the people who the government has already said are in need. Yes, I'm sorry.

The cuts in this bill actually just make it worse for American families, for people who are designed to have these Um, I I just don't understand it. I'm a Matthew twenty five person.

Mm-hmm.

I believe that we should help those people who are hungry and who are in need. And certainly uh I believe in good health.

Mm-hmm.

And I certainly support the principles of making America healthy again.

Mm-hmm.

However, uh this bill just doesn't do that.

I think that's the only conclusion we can reach. I thank you for your testimony and I yield back.

Thank you, Miss Ganlund. Mister Griffiths, you're recognized.

Chairman Harris, I heard a comment that people were already dropping off of uh SNAP because of uh things in the reconciliation bill. But my recollection was is that none of that actually kicked in until later. I think some in October, some next year. Uh, the paperwork hadn't actually kicked in yet, so how's non-existent paperwork causing people to drop off or am I mistaken? Do you tell me if I'm wrong.

So,

I sometimes get my facts confused.

well, well, let me uh yeah, let me let me address that. Let me just address one thing that this has been brought up which

Yeah, please.

I think it's not only uh questions uh with regard to that um uh fast to approval that is what the administration's budget it's kind of read the bill. uh, we have a modest ten percent reduction. Um, sorry about that. Um, you know that we have a, uh, ten percent reduction to the COVID enhancements in the fruit and vegetable voucher. But again, if we, uh, can enact as twenty-two states have, uh, uh, requested waivers on - on, uh, junk food under SNAP, That frees up ten billion dollars in SNAP. Now, ten billion dollars, the entire WIC program is only eight billion dollars. It frees up more money to be spent in other parts of the supermarket. Let me make one point, that without a Buy American requirement, fifty-nine percent of fresh fruit is not American. It's from overseas. So let's not pretend that this is a complete American farm subsidy. You know, the uh subsidized American farmers, The WIC's first vegetable store.

And it's about a third, it's about a third uh of the,

Of vegetable, of vegetables.

of the vegetables are,

That's right, and that's right.

are not American-based.

And that's why in the bill one thing we did is we actually allowed frozen vegetables to be purchased under WIC because that will now allow more American vegetables to be, to be uh, to be consumed. But with regards to your question about SNAP, uh, no, some of those, some of those provisions are, are in, are uh in place uh in, in Uh, several states have implemented them, Arizona the first one, which had a dramatic reduction, because remember there are two major parts of that, of what it did. It said you have to have work requirements and then it said, oh by the way, the states actually have to check to make sure you qualify. And that's why, look, if you qualify for these programs, you will get them. And if you don't qualify for them, you shouldn't be getting them. Remember, the states, and I'll - I'll tell you a little short story about my state, which had a fourteen percent inaccurate payment rate, fourteen percent. And what they chose to do is, because they know the way we wrote the bill, we said, " Oh, by the way, if you can't get it down very quickly, that improper payment rate, by the way, the vast majority of which are overpayments, uh, then we're gonna delay a penalty on that." So they actually, in my state, conspired to stop t- to stop the reduction in the improper payment rate, to keep it high enough so they don't have to pay a penalty. The gaming in the system at the States was immense, and what we said is, in the bill, is you have to work if you're able-bodied again, and you're not pregnant, you're not old, you're not taking care of a disabled person, you're not taking care of a young person. You have to work, train, or volunteer twenty hours a week. That's pretty modest when I tell most people that. They go, " Why is it only twenty hours a week?" Because you're taking the tax money from someone who's working forty or fifty or sixty hours a week,

Well, and and Mister Mister Chairman, let me

so it's But, yes, so,

Let me, let me

but to short answer your question, the state, the other states have shown, have gone between ten and fifteen percent reductions when all they're doing is they are just making certain that, you know, the program integrity, you're actually making certain that the people qualify. That's pretty simple. And I, I, I hope everyone would agree that if you qualify you should get it, and if you don't qualify you shouldn't.

Well, and, and let me just put in a little correction, this comes from my years of having been a divorced attorney there are actually four point three three weeks in a month so if you take eighty hours of uh a month and divide it by four point three three it's not twenty it's eighteen point four seven and since we average it out over a period of of weeks and months uh you really only have to average eighteen and a half hours of work or volunteer work or education or drug treatment program or or or in order to qualify so there's all kinds of exceptions isn't that accurate

Uh, that's a- that's absolutely right, and - and it appears that actually the uh projected uh uh decrease in SNAP in the mandatory side what we budget for in the mandatory side is actually gonna be an underestimate we actually probably will save more through program. We're finding out that you save more through program integrity cuz again, the States had no skin in the game. They don't pay a dime toward the SNAP benefit. Uh, and what we're finding out is that when we make them uh, conduct program integrity, that we're finding out that, um, the federal government has been taking advantage of for years.

Yeah. And I and I would say I voted for the, uh, soft drink, uh, amendment previously, and I agree with you, Mister Chairman, that, you know, if we're trying to m- make folks healthier, even though I love my soft drinks with the sugar in them, uh, if the government's paying forward, m- many of my constituents agree that things that are clearly unhealthy, particularly for young people, um, ought not be paid for by the government, and uh, i- it would be nice, maybe, maybe we need an amendment that dumps all that money in, takes away the sugary drinks and dumps all that money into some of these things that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to think are more important. That, uh, did you have anything else, Mister Chairman, that you wanted to address that you brought up?

Uh, no, I I would I would just say that, uh, I think I think you're absolutely right.

Yep.

But when we have a childhood obesity epidemic, and we have an epidemic going on, we ought to be very careful that with one hand we're not creating that childhood obesity epidemic, and then with the other hand, spending uh tens of hundreds of billions of dollars, you know, on the CHIPS program, uh to - to not only treat children for obesity, but then the long-range problems with obesity uh that - that will cost our Medicaid and Medicare program long-term. Uh, so I couldn't agree with you more. Uh, um, I hope that there will be an amendment offered again, and I hope that uh a lot of my colleagues, especially on the other side of the aisle change their mind about sugary beverages on snap

uh you're back madam chair

thank you mister griffith mister negus you're recognized

thank you madam chair i'd like to yield just a moment to the ranking member if i might

i just hope you'll change your mind about um cutting the uh fruit and veggie vouchers and i hope that um you'll change your mind about cutting by two hundred million dollars um and um and and and would maybe join with some of us in restoring this uh the farm to school program which you guys all eliminated um that hurts our farmers. It means that our kids get less nutritious food in school. I thank the gentlemen.

Thank you. I I wanna yield to the moment uh yield a moment to uh the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mister Bishop uh from Georgia, if you if you care to respond to some of the comments from your colleague.

Thank you. I I I'd just like to point out we uh are critiquing the bill uh with its deficiencies. Um And we've spent a lot of time, which is very meritorious, on the cuts to our nutrition programs. But uh there's some other things that help uh that that will hurt ordinary Americans particularly in rural America. Uh the Rural Utilities Program uh is hurt by this bill. Uh it makes significant cuts to the uh the Rural Utilities, which is a forty-four percent cut for rural water and and waste disposal grants. Uh, those are essential for uh communities that don't have access to clean, drinking water and wastewater treatment. Uh, it cuts the grants for wastewater projects in the Native Alaskan, Native Hawaiian and tribal communities by sixty-seven percent. Uh, they don't have access to running water at all. Uh, at a time when the costs are elevated, uh, reducing the investments, uh, that are available for these communities is terrible. uh in rural america everywhere uh where they have a low tax base uh they can't uh and keep up with what's necessary to have clean drinking water and waste water without these programs and this this this bill just doesn't do what it should do it it reduces that

can i i wanna follow up on that point um

uh

mister bishop and and maybe ask a question for mister harris because sort of setting a playing field here i represent pretty rural district and so i view it much through the same lens that mister bishop does the bill does cut the rural utilities program correct

uh the uh we talking about the grant or the loan program

the grant program

yes

uh the grant program is is that that's right there is a reduction in the grant program uh now there there is an increase in the number of earmarks

ok does the bill i hear you no no i'm not i

the other the the remainder of the program is cut that's correct

i got it and these aren't they're not designed as gotcha questions i honestly wanna get it a better sense of what the bill does and does not do cuts the rural utility program with respect to grants cuts to the farm service agency correct

uh there are there is there are small reductions yes

ok cuts to the national excuse me cuts to the natural resources conservation service

right

correct

uh there are probably small reductions in there as well

ok uh cuts to rural development program

There are probably small cuts to that as well.

OK. You could understand, Mister Harris, my skepticism about this bill being championed as, you know, some paragon for rural America when it cuts the Farm Service Bureau, when it cuts the Rural Utilities Program, when it cuts the Rural Development Program, when it cuts the Natural Resources Conservation Service, all of which folks in my district, ranchers, farmers in Northern Colorado and in Western Colorado rely on. And, I just cannot for the life of me understand why you all have decided on this course of cutting all of these vital programs that a lot of rural Americans, rural Coloradans rely on, particularly as was suggested at a moment when costs are going up through the roof across the board. Um, I wanna dig in in particular. I I understand we

I didn't know if there was a question mark there. If there was a

Well, I mean, I I I

I will give you, I'll give you two trillion reasons why we have a two trillion dollar deficit.

Oh, I hear you. uh that hasn't stopped you all from spending uh uh i thank the chairman uh uh and i would just say that has not

we have to face it at some point i'll yield back to you

uh thank you uh i uh i appreciate that that has not stopped and uh i'm not talking about you specifically but it certainly has not stopped your caucus uh from taking any steps to ameliorate the massive spending that's happening for for example the war in iran so i i think the the concerns about the deficit as you could probably imagine uh at least from my perspective from you know your caucus uh, are kind of on deaf ears given the realities of the way in which republicans have engaged in in spending over the course of their time in the majority. But in any event, I digress. Let's talk about something super technical in this bill that, uh, I was interested in discussing with you, and that's section seven fifty eight. Uh, section seven fifty eight, as you are probably aware, is the section of the bill concerning the rules that were promulgated by the US Department of Agriculture uh concerning small stock producers primarily in the poultry industry you're familiar with this

is this the packers and stockyards

correct

proposals yes

yes so these are essentially a set of it's a rider that was attached to your bill that blocks the department of agriculture from proceeding with a series of different rules that benefit small stock farmers and producers would you disagree with that contention

uh yes i've talked to my small stock farmers and producers and they although they say that for instance uh and i'll only deal with poultry because that's that's the industry in my district uh they'll say that the tournament system which is and i don't

sure

i mean i won't get into the weeds on it but you probably understand

that's ok proceed

you uh well the so that

i'm familiar with the tournament system i i have a lot of poultry farmers in my district that's what i wanted to talk about yeah

oh you're familiar ok so so when i've talked to to and again in my district there is a synergy most of the uh the people who have uh poultry houses in my district also have gross soybeans and corn so there there is a synergy between those two and they will tell you that although the tournament system is not perfect there is an occasional year where because of disease for instance they are they are not beneficiaries of the tournament system they will tell you that uh what it does is it uh rewards good animal husbandry if you take good care of your animals they grow bigger they grow faster they grow fatter if they're chickens and you get paid more per pound for them uh it's actually a system that rewards good animal husbandry and i understand the administration's

ok so

it goes you know the pendulum goes one way and the other

well let me let me explain the counter argument ok so

yeah

you're familiar with the poultry grower payment systems and capital improvement systems final rule right this is one of the four rules

but but this was the the the last rule

Correct. Is that right? The Department of Agriculture promulgated this rule. Yes. Right. Right. The department earlier this year announced that it was delaying implementation of this rule until twenty twenty seven. Right? That's right. Okay. And the American Farm Bureau Federation issued a statement in response. Let me just read you a portion of this statement. The decision by the administration to tell contract poultry growers to take a backseat by delaying the effective date by a year and a half is disappointing. growers have spoken on the need to level the playing field with more transparency surrounding how they are compensated, and they believed progress was being made. AFP looks forward to reminding the administration, Trump administration, during the public comment period that farmers come first and poultry companies should not be prioritized over the men and women who work to put food on the table for all of America's families. Those farmers aren't going to have an opportunity to weigh in with the administration, correct?

Uh, the only

You're blocking them from doing that.

So the way our system works is I represent the first congressional district of Maryland. My farmers want the tournament to be.

No, no, no, I hear you, but what I'm saying is

So, yes, they have input through me.

Uh, but No, no, no, no, no, but that's not what I'm saying. The rule has been delayed, right?

Yes.

By the secretary of agriculture. These farmers have said publicly, they disagreed with the secretary's decision, but they looked forward to at least making the case to the Trump administration over the course of this delayed period that this rule would benefit small poultry farmers and basically, you know, behooving the Trump administration to not do the benefit uh do the bidding rather of these massive large agribusiness companies. And this bill will stop them from even having the ability to convey their opinion on this. Because the basically this bill s- blocks the rule entirely. Or am I missing, is that?

That's th- no, that's correct, and that's correct.

Correct. Yeah, I I think so, well, I'm surpri- I appreciate your candor, I mean, to be honest, because I think it's pretty shocking. I don't understand why you wouldn't just let the Department of Agriculture proceed with their rulemaking and let small farmers and chicken producers in Maryland and in Colorado weigh in with the department, see where the department lands, you still have the ability in a future bill to take action, to say I disagree with what the department has done and so we're gonna proceed in a different direction but to cut off this process at the knees I just don't understand why you'd send a message to the American Farmer Federation Bureau and to countless farmers across the country that their voice doesn't matter. That doesn't seem like a position that would benefit rural America. It's my view. I

Like I say, I I can only speak for my district, the farmers and poultry growers in my district, want the tournaments.

But you're you're imposing their view on behalf of all the other poultry farmers in the country, including the American Farm Bureau Federation. I that's my point. That's why we have rulemaking processes.

It's it's not my

It's the ability for all the farmers in Maryland and Colorado and in Georgia and across the country send in weigh in with their views and then let the agency make a reasoned and objective decision Mr. Bishop I know you wanna get in on the this point.

I do, and I I just wanna say that the the issues that you just raised have been raised in subcommittee, uh not just this year, but last year. Uh this has been a topic of discussion for a while. Uh Miss Capter who is a member of the subcommittee uh uh has has has repeatedly raised this issue over and over and over and has offered amendments on the floor to various bills to try to lift it up for discussion uh because I think all of us are concerned that uh small producers ought to have the protection, and that uh uh this bill doesn't do what it should do to offer that protection. And to f- block that, the implementation of that rule will make it much more difficult uh for our small producers to be able to thrive.

Uh, I couldn't agree more, and I I would just say to close, Madam Chair, bottom line, if you are a small poultry farmer in western Colorado or in different parts of the country, This bill would undermine hard-fought protections for those small farmers. This bill is great for the largest poultry companies on planet Earth. I know, we know who we're talking about. So for the big agribusiness interests, I get it. I understand why they're big proponents of this bill. But for everybody else, this is a big loss. So, and that's why I'll be voting against it. I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Nguz. Miss Halterin, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank Chairman Harris and Ranking Member Bishop for uh before the rules committee today before i get into my comments and questions um chairman harris is there any uh response to what you've heard already that you'd like to give

well the the only again uh you know we won't belabor wick but the participation rate is down and the food cost per person is actually down about two percent which is exactly the amount that we are under the enacted level we are at what the administration asked which is which will match the partici- decreased participation rate and actually from F- FY twenty-five to twenty-six the decreased cost in food per person. Now, as appropriators, we're supposed to look at numbers. We can read the headlines and we, I know it's like we're s- gonna starve children and, you know, pregnant women and all the rest, but the facts are the facts.

Yeah.

The participation rate is lower, the cost per person is actually lower, it depends on what the food basket is, So we appropriated what we thought was the appropriate amount, no pun intended, the appropriate amount for - for the next fiscal year. And I will remind the gentlelady that we are in session every month of the year. If we come up short, God forbid, the - the - there is a problem, and we've done this in the past, we have passed supplemental w- expenditures. But we shouldn't pass it because we think there might be something. We should appropriate to the actual numbers.

Well, I appreciate that comment. If i- you know, if WIC applications are down, food costs are down, uh, wouldn't that responsibly prompt a need to review our own spending toward the program, uh, to readjust those amounts, to be responsible with the the tax dollars that we have received and have to appropriate?

And and that's exactly what we did.

And as you mentioned, we can always come back and do a supplemental if it looks like we're not able to meet the need but with applications down and costs down uh you are uh as an appropriator trying to balance the needs of many uh different uh competi competing priorities uh in the best way that that uh you know how.

That that's right.

Well uh the legislation before us I think reflects a disciplined uh targeted approach uh to support the core mission of the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. while still prioritizing farmers, rural communities and taxpayers, it ensures that federal agriculture programs support American producers, protect the food supply and strengthen rural communities without expanding an unnecessary bureaucracy. For states like Indiana and particularly rural and ag communities like in districts like mine, this bill has real world impacts. Indiana is one of the leading nation's leading ag states. with agriculture contributing tens of billions of dollars annually to the state economy and supporting a major share of indiana's rural employment base. The bill strengthens the programs that support corn and soybean producers, livestock operations and food processing facilities that are central to indiana's economy. It also reinforces rural development investments, broad band expansion and home ownership opportunities in communities that depend on a strong federal and state partnership. So my question, Chairman Harris, is about the rural development funding in this bill. Could you please talk about how the three point eight one billion dollars in rural development funding supports infrastructure, housing, and broadband expansion in our rural communities across the country and like those in southern Indiana?

Uh, absolutely. So the, you know, the bill, uh, i- that part of the bill, because we haven't talked about the FTA part, but that part of the bill not only helps farmers but helps the communities in which they live. And that that's all part of the the rural communities where they live. So we've dealt with, you know, somehow the ways we've dealt with farmers, make sure the crop insurance programs are appropriate, make sure they're appropriately funded, make sure that uh that that they that we protect the farmers in that way. With regards to the communities they live in. So for instance, we increased the loan authority for the what's called the business and industry loan program, to two billion dollars. It used to be much less than that. And these are for infrastructure investments that cost money. I mean, you wanna build a hospital, you wanna build something that costs a significant amount of money. We - they were - we were restricted by the fact that the business and industry loan program, uh, had a relatively low, uh, loan authority. So, we bumped it up to two billion dollars, a very significant increase. We increased the rural electric program loan authority to eight point three billion. Again, part of the problems in - in the rural communities is - is that uh, they need loan authority, whether it's for wastewater, which - which is at one billion dollars, the loan authority for water and wastewater treatment, or two billion for the business and industry, eight point three billion for rural electric, they will be able to get the loan with the - w- again, these are loans, they're subsidized, uh, through the USDA, uh, in order to get that infrastructure done. We lev- have level loan authority for what's called the Section five O two Home Ownership Loan Program, again, to make sure that home ownership uh, is uh, remains affordable and available uh in those areas. And then we continue to build on efforts to expand rural broad band. We have forty million dollars for the reconnect program, which is, which we are successfully, you know, progressing uh the very important internet expansion and broad band expansion into rural communities. Uh, again we uh we are thankful that the uh that the uh administration is looking at, whereas if we were having the discussion

Thank you,

Thank you.

I really appreciate the emphasis on broad band deployment in

Thank you, Miss Houcher, Miss Leisure-Fernandez, you're recognized.

Uh, thank you very much, and Miss uh uh, Mister Chairman of the subcommittee, uh, my uh colleague went through all of the different cuts. right and he asked you it we're cutting we're we're cutting snap we're cutting in this bill now you try to say it's small cuts but i wanna go to something that i think makes a difference uh and ask about the different kinds of cuts i understand that there is a nineteen million dollar cut uh for farm service agency uh salaries and expenses is that correct

uh that's right the the efficiencies in the department i think have allowed us to

another sixty four million dollar cut for conservation programs

that's right there is there is a decrease

four to two million dollar cut for rural development

uh that's right in a three point eight one billion dollar budget that's it there is a cut

there are cuts and the reality is that when you cut programs and when you cut the people who are supposed to make those programs work they don't work And we are coming out of a period where Trump's doge ended up cutting all these people from USDA and from all our federal agencies, and really handicapping our federal agencies, at the same time that they were spending all kinds of money on their corruption and their fraud. But they were cutting the people who need to make their programs work. And our farmers and ranchers are not happy about it. Uh, we have a signed letter to Congress on NRCS and USDA staffing assigned by over five hundred and forty farmers and ranchers wanted to put their name on this. And this is what they said. You said efficiency? Uh, their quote is, efficiency should mean better service for farmers and ranchers, not fewer people available to do the work. Cutting staffing without addressing growing demands risks creating bottlenecks that undermine the very programs farmers and ranchers ranchers rely on. You know, and I think that that's it. You can't say we're gonna have efficiencies when the ranchers and farmers you're supposed to serve are telling you it's not working because nobody is picking up the phone.

Mm.

I have one of the largest rural districts in America. That's not a single state. Alaska has it on me. But my district is huge, and my ranchers and farmers are upset because nobody is picking up the phone. Now, when nobody picks up the phone, that may be really, really efficient, really efficient, right? Because then you don't have to deal with anybody's problems. Right?

Is that is is that a question mark?

Yeah, yeah. That's I don't know.

I I I think if you

When you say efficiency, I don't see how it works by not providing people the help they need,

I think

the ranchers and farmers we're supposed to serve.

I think if you ask the average American, is government efficient, the answer is an overwhelming heck no. So in an attempt to reorganize, the look the reorganizations are always difficult

you just said you were more efficient how can you now say that americans will say heck no you just said the government is more efficient so we're gonna cut this funding

prior to prior to president trump's reorganizations

but they're not efficient

and even perhaps subsequent to it the average american thinks government at almost every level is relatively inefficient

do you know how do you know what the increase in foreign bankruptcies is this year mister chairman

the president made an attempt i'm i'm sorry i i i Don't think I yield it back,

Mister Chairman.

but I will I'll just sit back and just listen,

D- d-

because you you obviously are not interested in my answer, so I will just sit back and listen to your tirade.

Uh, it's not a tirade. I mean, we're we're in a hearing. And do you know what I mean, the problem is is that these efficiencies that you're talking about, we have actual facts. Farm bankruptcies are up forty six percent. Farm bankruptcies are up forty six percent. Ranking member Bishop, are you aware of this crisis that's happening in uh rural America?

Yes, I am. I'm hearing it from farmers in my district and I have access to the same information that you have access to uh and we raise that uh issue at every level of of our hearings uh however uh in the drafting of this bill uh it is not being taken into account and uh the bill itself with some of the cuts that are referenced uh for rural america for example the cuts to the energy programs uh they increase the cost they will not allow uh funding of the programs that actually decrease the cost that would help some of these farms that are going into bankruptcy and some of the rural uh businesses that are going into bankruptcy uh not go because it would lower their cost for energy they're cutting the energy program the re program for example Uh, the cuts to the Rural Energy for America program by half, fifty million dollars below last year, uh, means that, uh, uh, it's gonna raise cost for rural communities, rural businesses, and our farmers. And they need energy in order to irrigate, to run their farm equipment, uh, and just the communities themselves. Uh, and this bill actually It eliminates funding for the high energy cost grant program, which helps reduce the cost of energy for families and individuals in communities where there's extremely high per household energy cost of two hundred and seventy percent of the national average cost. These are things that help people and everybody knows now that with inflation with the tariffs with uh the the war running up the cost of energy, for everything that we do that uh if anything we should be trying to use the programs that are funded by this bill rather than cut them to reduce the cost for everyday americans but this bill doesn't do that

and i i'm really appreciating the fact that you're talking about we're not just talking about the fact that we're no longer gonna be funding the ability of uh families to access fresh food and vegetables it's not just about accessing fresh food and vegetables. Our world economies depend on clean water.

That's right.

They depend on affordable electricity. They depend on farmers being able to get the help they need, especially our small

Exactly.

and medium-sized farmers.

Yes.

And this bill doesn't prioritize small and medium-sized farmers and or poultry farmers does it, Mr. Boucher.

It does not. And uh and the travel

farmers.

Right.

Yeah.

Right. And I and I think that I I find it very interesting that uh I've we've heard today, several Republicans open quote, " food costs are down". We are cutting the women, infant, and children program cuts, another Republican's, the chairman's words, because of the decreased cost of food. Now, Americans but those in actually people do watch the rules committee, interestingly, enough i find it interesting as as do you madam chair for anybody watching this you can tell look at the veracity if somebody if republicans are saying food costs are down and because there is decreased uh cost to food right now who should you trust i mean who out there is walking around saying food costs are down republicans are walking around saying food costs are down. Trump is saying the economy is the greatest ever and inflation is going down. It is not. And our ranchers and farmers and women, infant and children, let's say what it is. They are cutting funding for women, infant and children. Rick, women, infant and children, they would take the food from their mouths they're cutting the funding for that because in their words food costs are down ok america are food costs down or not i don't know if there was anything you wanted to add ranking member i thought you wanted to add

no there there is not enough time

well thank you very

i mean i i've had it so i'm i've not enough time for me to get my rant out so thank you for yielding

ok uh well if there is anything else ranking member uh bishop if not i will yield back to the chairwoman

thank you miss lester fernandez um uh chairman harris i'd i saved my questions till last you have a chart there that you have been using uh related to the wick program mister mcgovern said that the the numbers you were using were coming from president trump But I take it that those are numbers that are coming from an agency somewhere. Is that correct?

That's correct, the National Data Bank version. That's right, of the chart.

The National Data Bank version.

Right, because a hundred thousand fewer people on approximately a hundred thousand, little over a hundred thousand fewer people on WIC this year than last fiscal year.

And and I'm assuming that this agency has been producing this information for many years.

Every month.

for Democrats and Republicans

Uh, it doesn't have an R and D next to the number.

over the Correct. Would you like to submit that chart for the record to show that what you are talking about comes from an agency and not from the words of President Trump?

I'm I would be more than happy to submit it for the record.

OK. Well, without objection, I will submit that chart for the record because i think it's important that credibility be established here um i i really uh wanna do that in the rules committee so i'd i'd like to submit that um you do you wanna talk a little bit more about how you've talked about this pretty much throughout the entire hearing here but you wanna elaborate a little much uh more on how you balance priorities while advancing a a bill that protects taxpayers by cutting spending in areas where it should have that where cutting should have been done

Uh, sure. Uh, so that's absolutely right. So again, you know, we have a uh, for instance, the farm service agency, we provide one point one billion, which is a nineteen million dollar cut. That's like less than a tenth of one percent. I mean, it's a minuscule cut. And again, the uh the administration has been one of the focuses of the administration is to actually do more with less. This can be done in every single government agency I've ever been familiar with. And I I was in the military for seventeen years. We could start there. OK, every single government agency could deal with some efficiency. We made a mi- a minuscule uh cut, but every cut is significant. Because with a two trillion dollar deficit you have to do that. Reconnect program, for instance, as we build out broadband, there is less and less that needs to be done. So why would you level fund it from now until eternity? Uh, you know, a COVID era programs, we should examine all the COVID era programs and look them in a much more holistic fashion. So when we talk about a a small ten percent cut in the fruit and vegetable voucher, but yet we are limiting in twenty-two states ten billion dollars worth of sugary beverages that has to be somewhere else in the supermarket, we just have to get a little more clever at how we actually incentivize that going to fruits and vegetables, and then incentivizing it going to American farmers, because again, fifty-nine percent of of uh fruits do not are are not derived in America. So, and we can deal with that, and we should deal with that, and that's a position that we'll need to,

May- let's, may- may I follow up pr- quickly while you're on that point?

yeah, we, yes.

How is it that we have " Buy America" for so many other things? This is the first time I've heard anybody accentuate the fact that we're not buying America for agriculture products.

That's the, that's the,

You know, we we make a big deal out of " Buy America" for uniforms for the military, correct?

That's right.

And in a lot of other areas. What is wrong that we have not made " Buy America" a law for fruits and vegetables.

Well, Madam Chair, I'm hoping that, again, the USDA, we have language in the committee report that they look at a Buy American program. I will tell you nutritionally there is almost nothing we don't grow in America or produce in America. We produce equivalents. And some people say, " Well, but you can't buy X berry in the middle of w- w- winter in that's made in America. OK, well you can buy it frozen or you can buy something else with equal nutritional value that's actually made in America." We should be doing that. These are our agricultural deficit, trade deficit is now fifty billion dollars a year, and that's over the past six years, it went from zero to fifty billion dollars a year, almost all in horticultural products, which of course are fruits and vegetables mostly. We should deal with that.

And and do you know of any agriculture program in this country, or for that matter, any county or any state that can provide for the national defense of this country?

any agricultural program. Well, we

That could provide for the national defense.

National defense.

You know,

Yeah.

the number one reason we have a national government is to provide for the national defense. And yet, things get compared, programs that could be funded by state, by localities. Mister Bishop's talking about being a Matthew twenty-five person, In my mind, what Jesus was talking about was we as individuals. He never said it's up to the government to take care of people. He said it's up to us as individuals to take care of our fellow human beings.

Mm-hmm.

It's up to us as individuals. And yet, it's equated all the time that because we have a federal government designed for the defense of this nation, that somehow or another there's this equivalency that's out there. I I just don't buy that equivalency. I think we as human beings should yes, we should give till it hurts. I believe in that. I truly believe in that. But it to our fellow human beings, not to bureaucrats. who run the programs, who make a lot more money than the people they're supposed to be helping. I have one more question I'd like to ask you. I'm going way over the time I normally use. SNAP stands for Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. You know, every once in a while a phrase hits my brain in a strange way. So, we're what is the supplemental piece? I take it we are, we as taxpayers, are sup- supplementing what the people receiving SNAP are providing for themselves. Is that correct?

That that's right. I mean, the the supplemental nutrition assistance program is never meant to be a f- to be a full uh program to provide all nutrition. Obviously the states can help, obviously other programs help. Uh, again, it is supplemental, and we ha- given the data on obesity and overweight in this country, we have to look very, very carefully at whether or not our supplemental nutrition program is actually not a nutrition program. It's morphed into a program that I think promotes uh unhealthy food habits.

And, and I would agree with you, because I think it's really as a result of the growth of that program that i think you can see a causation between the growth of the federal subsidy to people and obesity.

Certainly with regards to to unhealthy foods, there's no question about the fact that unhealthy food is not limited in any way. And in fact, that ten at least ten percent, we don't even keep

Well, thank you very much. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate that, I appreciate that, and I thank you for amplifying these things, and I thank you for amplifying these things, and I'm apologize, and um, apologize I spent a little more time than I normally do. I spent a little more time than I normally do. on this issue but i thought some things needed to be clarified today because there had been some distortions of things that had been said so

oh there are no

thank you gentlemen i believe all of the questions have been asked and you are excused

maybe we should look at donald trump's diet

I now welcome our second panel, my colleagues from the Education and Workforce Committee, Representative Owens and Ranking Member Scott. Your full statement will be submitted for the record and we ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. Representative Owens, I welcome your testimony.

OK, sorry. I'm pleased to come to you before the Rules Committee with two common sense anti-fraud measures. Stop Children's Scam, Care Scam Act of twenty twenty six and no Aid for Ghost Students Act

We need to pull in a little more.

OK.

Right.

Alright, here we go. And no Aid to Ghost Students Act, twenty twenty six. Together these bills protect American taxpayer dollars. strengthen accountability in federal programs, and assure public resources reach the working families and students they are intended to serve. Child care is essential to helping working parents thrive and, and our local economy grow. The Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG, is a federal program governing children's care programs for low-income working families. This block grant program exists to help working families access affordable care child care, giving them the freedom to remain in the workforce, increase their economic opportunity, realize financial freedom, and move beyond the need for a federal safety net. Protecting the integrity of child care funding is essential. Low-income working families rely on child care assistance programs to remain in the workforce, expand their economic uh economic o- opportunities, and ultimately move beyond the need for federal assistance. But when bad actors are allowed to exploit the system, like we've seen in Minnesota, they divert so- resources from the families these programs are meant to serve. Recent events underscore the need for strong oversight and accountability at every level. H. R. seventy-seven twenty-six includes simple common sense reforms that crack down on fraud and increase accountability. The solutions contained within this bill include differentiating between fraud and other p- impairment errors, and using state data to identify fraudulent uh trends, setting an improper payment rate threshold to keep states accountable, acquiring more regular audits of finances, and ensuring consequences for program violations are enforced. Without these reforms, the same failures will continue nationwide, wasting taxpayer dollars and diverting resources away from working families who actually need the help. Federal students Aid is another area where public trust depends on strong uh program integrity. Each year, federal student aid helps millions of students and families afford a post a post uh secondary education. However, ghost students' fraud schemes are putting these tax tax dollars at risk. Bad actors use stolen or fabricated identities to submit facet of uh applications and rolling courses and collect and refund collect refund portions of the student aid once this funds are dispersed the alleged student advantages. The Department of Education has taken steps to address this threat including identity valid validation requirements and real-time fraud detection and FASA. These uh those efforts have already shown results with the department blocking more than one billion dollars in financial aid and uh theft in twenty twenty five. But under s- current law the Higher Education Act does not require the department to maintain these safeguards on a continual basis. The No Aid for S- Goals Student Act responds to this need by requiring the department to screen each facet of sub- of submission for identity fraud risk and requiring schools to verify the students' identity for suspicious application before the student aid is dispersed. The proposal in this bill garners strong bipartisan support in the committee And I hope the same will happen as this boom, this bill moves to the floor. These bills address different programs, but they reflect the same principle. Federal dollars to serve the people they are intended to help, not bad actors seeking to exploit public programs. By strengthening oversight in the child care uh assistance, and requiring strong identity uh verification stra- safe safeguards and federal student aid, these bills protect taxpayer, preserve, pr- preserve um public trust, and help ensure that limited resources reach working families and real students, not fraudsters. Thank you and I welcome your questions, if you might ask.

Thank you, Mr. Owens. Ranking member Scott, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member McGovern. Uh, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Child care is not a luxury, it's a necessity for millions of American families, yet in many communities, costs rival rent or mortgage payments, and in others, adequate supply simply does not exist. The consequences are real. Our economy loses an estimated hundred and twenty-two billion dollars annually in earnings productivity and revenue due to child care shortages this isn't a failure of the individual parents or providers it's a policy failure and that makes this legislation before us today even more disappointing the hr seventy seven twenty six the stop child care scams act does nothing to reduce child care costs. increase supply or improve conditions for providers. Instead it creates an unnecessary and unnecessary uncertainty for the States and providers who administer our our largest child care assistance program, while adding bureaucratic burdens without meaningful benefit. I support efforts to prevent pro- fraud in government programs, but there's no evidence of widespread fraud in the child care program, and States are already required to report error rates and undergo compliance reviews of the Child Care and Development Block Grant every three years. This bill would require them to triple their reporting obligations using accounting methods not used in any other federal program, diverting C G C C D B G dollars away from families and towards administrative costs. Beyond redundancy, H R seventy-seven twenty-six is extremely vague. It would allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to designate high risk and subject them to additional monitoring without defining what high risk means or what uh additional uh monitoring entails opening the door to weaponization of this bill to attack states uh certain states uh total funding provides no additional funding for support of these new responsibilities even as the office of child care has lost roughly half of its oversight staff in the past year With limited administrative capacity, it is unclear if implementation of this bill is even feasible. It is at its core, but my colleagues have decried for many years as an unfunded mandate. H. R. seventy-seven twenty-six also mandates permanent disbarment of providers found guilty of fraud with no room for mitigating circumstances. This could further threaten small providers that operate with limited Excuse me. operate with limited administrative capacity. And communities already facing child care shortages, permanently removing even even one provider, especially one that serves nutritious meals and snacks through the child and adult care food program, would leave families without options for both child care and healthy meals. H. R. seventy-seven twenty-six further fails to clarify whether a violation in one state would trigger a nationwide ban, or whether department applies to an individual or an entire franchise, or even whether or not state funding is uh could be in jeopardy because of a finding of quote non-compliance. These are not ma- minor drafting oversights, they are fundamental questions that can have serious consequences. Under current law, the secretary has limited but important flexibility to account for unique circumstances to correct technical errors and prevent enforcement from inadvertent inadvertently harming families. This bill would eliminate that discretion entirely, substituting substituting rigid federal mandates for administrative judgment. Fraud must be addressed and it should be a bipartisan commitment, but smart accountability means strong enforcement paired with practical flexibility. Punishing states and providers for minor inadvertent mistakes does not protect children, it puts the programs that families depend on at risk. And therefore I cannot support H. R. seventy-seven twenty-six, which pri- prioritizes inflexible mandates over real-world needs of working families. The other bill before us, H. R. seventy-eight ninety-two, the No Aid for Ghost Students Act, is not the anti-fraud measure it purports, it supporters claim it is, and is entire entirely premature. It requires the Department of Education to establish a process within the free application for federal student aid, FAFSA, to screen applicants the secretary deems quote " reasonably suspicious of identity fraud" and also codifies an expedited program review process for s- institutions of higher learning that still uh disperse federal student aid to a student whose application the department has previously deemed as presenting reasonable suspicion of identity fraud. And let me clarify, the department only just launched its new identity fraud prevention system, so it's too, it's still too premature for Congress to attempt to codify these efforts without evidence of success. Federal student aid is one of the most effective programs in the country for individual economic opportunity and collective economic prosperity, supporting nearly three million students annually. Protecting against fraud is critical, but this builds punitive uh mandates unclear enforcement standards and lack of guidance for colleges and students, do not protect students, it just puts higher education at risk. Finally, uh Madam Chair, I'd like to address my vote in committee, I voted in favor of H R seventy eight ninety two as a sign of good faith that we would continue to negotiate uh before the bill would was uh uh reaches the floor but unfortunately we were unable to reach an agreement. And because the bill does not include changes I consider necessary, I will oppose H. R. seventy-eight ninety-two on the floor and look forward to working with a broad range of education and fraud experts to address student aid fraud holistically. Both of these bills follow a similar playbook. They circumvent deliberative processes, they use taxpayers' funding as a weapon, and then call it accountability. We should pursue smart enforcement strong with fraud is real and flexible where honest mistakes occur and these bills do neither so will oppose both bills and encourage my colleagues to do the same madam chair yield back

uh thank you mister scott miss fischbach unrecognized

uh build back again i don't have any questions

ok mister mcgovern

target fraudsters and protect taxpayer funds from being stolen or or misused uh would you agree that uh whether it's financial aid child care or anywhere else in the government that we should be concerned about fraud and misuse of taxpayer funds

uh in in every aspect of it absolutely

yes

as taxpayers money not ours all defrauded

in in fact with respect to fraud in our education system you said in march and i quote every scent that is defrauded represents a lost opportunity for students in uh and a serious offense to the american taxpayer end quote and that that's i'm quoting you accurately right

ok

well in twenty seventeen donald trump had to pay twenty five million dollars in a fraud settlement to more than one hundred student victims who paid for phony trump university real estate seminars that turned out to be totally worthless and now in your bill um you wanna give this administration new sweeping powers to go after fraud which uh it's like a fox guarding the the hen house But Marco Rubio, who's Trump's current secretary of state, said in twenty sixteen that Trump University was a fake university, the people borrowed thirty six thousand dollars each to attend. And you know what these students got in return? According to Marco Rubio, quote, they got to take a picture with a cardboard cutout of Donald Trump, end quote. So here's my question. Since you care about fraud, does your bill do anything to prevent places like Trump University from defrauding students uh to the tune of millions of dollars

there's been over three hundred and fifty million dollars in the last five years in the particular one building i'm talking about with the gold students uh that's something that's happening today not uh not twenty seventeen i have no idea about the twenty seventeen i know in twenty twenty six

well i just i just wanna make sure that a trump university scenario doesn't ever happen again

we're dealing with well the goal is stop fraud no no matter where it is and i'm not gonna respond to that particular issue cause that was back twenty seventeen i have no idea what the uh the background is on that i will say this i think we all agree that um we have forty billion dollars in debt and uh over uh a billion dollars of that just back few years ago was done in the in this particular area of of uh fraud

hmm

it's in in the system that we need to make sure we're addressing that

well well well let me let me let me let me move on um since you said you care about rooting out fraud wherever it is um Are you as outraged as I am about Trump's recent settlement with his own administration? It looks like the one point eight billion dollar slush fund, according to the acting Attorney General, may be on hold now. Um But um he uh he he worked out a deal uh for his allies and for his family uh basically um you know uh blanket immunity. Uh uh un- uh unbelievable um for uh for him and his family, for tax crimes or any other crimes that may have been committed. um i mean i i mean

can i can i ask you a question

yeah yeah i mean are you outraged by that

ok uh are you uh concerned about the reason i'm here is to talk about the anti-fraud stop child care scams act and no aid for for ghost students this this is happening today

no i i uh i right well this is happening today too there's this settlement in which the

that

president is going to deal with with every agency in his administration to say

well if if if it's happened

we we we we can never go after you uh we can never investigate anything we you you'll be held accountable for nothing i mean that that sounds crooked to me

well we passed the stop child care scam act and the no aid for ghost students act we are holding people accountable we're stopping the process of our kids that are that are very vulnerable and uh right now with forty trillion dollars in debt we can stop that process as we we uh start uh uh addressing this

yeah i i wanna uh ask you and as me and i was just said to put in the record the uh kind of settlement agreement uh on the on this on this trump thing

right

uh mr. mcgovern i i think i need to point out to you that um trump university was not getting financial aid students weren't getting financial aid

they were defrauded they were defrauded and and i i'm just trying to that's that's fraud

well that's that's a but they were not participating the subject matter today is financial aid here

that's fraud

was was

alright well if you wanna defend yeah well let me let me i i mean i mean the the the corrupt settlement that i just

and

i'm talking about would give the would give trump and his family an unlimited number of get out of jail free cards for any crime any crime uh that could be investigated and

i know that the reason i put this these two bills together stop child care scams act the scam is going on our in our system right now that ok uh parents are are taking advantage of that they cannot pay off their bills yeah taxpayers are are paying billions of billions of dollars because of this process and the other one is no aid for child for both students in which yeah

well i'm

right

thank you

process take their income and disappear

well uh well how about this one president trump purchased more than one million dollars in dell technology stock stock nine days later he said to the american people quote go out and buy a dell computer end quote three months later the pentagon announced a nine point seven billion dollar contract with dell is is there any concern there at all about any of that

well i would say this i think we can agree that fraud is bad so that means that you would be ok to uh uh support me in my stop child care scams act and the no aid for ghost students act because obviously this is something that's happened today and i would imagine that we're on the same page we wanna stop this fraud

so does that mean you agree with me that these things are fraud

no i'm i'm just saying that any fraud we find

ok well let me let me let me just

you mean

Last week we learned that the White House intervened to force the Pentagon to give a two a six hundred and twenty million dollar loan to a start-up called Vulcan Elements, three months after Trump Junior's venture capital firm took a stake of undisclosed uh of an undisclosed size in Vulcan. The company's valuation grew tenfold after the deal was announced. Is there any concern about corruption there?

I'm here to talk about the Stop Child Care Scams Act of twenty twenty six, and uh no aid no aid for gold students act that's right now impacting our our country in a big way

you know and i appreciate you're here to to talk about fraud but you only wanna talk about the fraud that you wanna talk about and this is this is happening right now so i get it the president if the president or his family does it it's not fraudulent or corrupt none of you will call it out so don't get me wrong there's real examples of waste fraud and abuse in government and we can talk about you know how to deal with that and i agree with mister scot about that these bills could be better but if we wanna find it i think we should start with the fraudster in chief who is who currently occupies the oval office um uh let me uh ask mister scott i don't know if you wanna have any comments i mean i'm i'm outraged by all this stuff and

well yeah i think the answer suggests that we're only looking at fraud in certain areas and ignoring in others which really alerts us to the fact that it may be weaponized certain colleges that he wants to go after. And he can use this bill, weaponize this bill, go after them for minor little mistakes, ignore everybody else. So if you can ignore fraud from people that you, that are, that are your friends, and be vigorous in your uh uh attack on fraud, your enemies, these bills will be helpful

Yeah.

to weaponize uh to be w- to be weapons of um of of those attacks.

Yeah. it it just it's just stunning to me what is happening before our very eyes um and the silence um which is equal to complicity quite frankly you know um when joe biden tried to do a deal for his son um you know many of us criticized that thought it was inappropriate um not a peep from any republican about the fraud um and i and i i i mean just the blatant fraud the blatant corruption that we see unfolding uh in this white house i've never seen anything like it uh makes me nostalgic for nixon that's how bad it is but anyway with that i i yield back

thank you mister mcgovern um mister scott you're recognized

thank you madam chair and um we're here to talk about the stop child care scams act of twenty twenty six hr seventy seven twenty six is that correct mister owens

yes exactly

i wanna i wanna just say this the integrity of the programs matter because the taxpayers are not gonna support them when they're filled up with fraud and it doesn't matter if it's um childcare or snap the the american citizens want the fraud eliminated from the system and i don't think it matters if you're a democrat or a republican they want the fraud eliminated i wanna i want you Child care, I want to bring this to your attention, child care assistance program assessment of internal controls, special review, April tenth, two thousand and nineteen, office of the legislative auditor, state of Minnesota. And if you pull this up, and I'm not asking you to pull it up, going all the way back to two thousand and nineteen, the legislators requested the investigation into uh the child care systems in their own state. Minnesota State Legislature requested investigations. And you get into the introduction and this group of legislators asks Office of Legislative Auditor Auditor to conduct such a review, because this the state legislature in Minnesota knew there was fraud going on. I served in the state legislature when you're a state legislator you don't ask for a review, unless you've got information that there's fraud going on in a system in your state. And they have pretty good insight into it. And I don't know, but were you were you in the state legislature, mister, or were you, Bobby?

I was.

You were. So, um, I was on the Appropriations Committee. I mean, and the appropriators at the state level have a pretty good feel for when something's going on. Would you would you agree with me on that one?

Yes, sir.

And so, uh, I I I say this to just get to the point that you know, the findings of this report, and I'm not going get too far into this, DHS did not adequately identify and analyze the risk of fraud in the program and had weak processes to coordinate investigations statewide. So I I again, the point the point I want to make here is going all the way back to two thousand and nineteen, the state legislature in Minnesota thought there was fraud in the system and yet the governor and the attorney general did nothing and so um i think this legislation is necessary i think it's well thought out i think we have a responsibility that when federal funds are tied to it that we mandate the integrity of the system and obviously uh what we had in place failed uh because we had a governor and an attorney general both of which i know simply looked the other way. Their own state legislature knew there was fraud going on, and yet they did nothing about it at the state level. So, um, Mister Owens, if you have anything else to add, I'm I'm ready to vote for this and look forward to seeing it on the floor of the house, but I want the American citizens to know Minnesota, two thousand nineteen, their own state legislature knew that there was widespread fraud in that system, and the governor and the attorney general of their state did nothing about it.

I think, thank you for that. Uh, I think we had a parallel shift. well overdue we found out that american people been ripped off for quite a while it's become muscle memory um people do it they get away with it um meanwhile the american people pay the price uh our debt goes up inflation goes up now we have both families both members have to to work two jobs because of this stuff and we finally have a presence putting this in in order so i'm excited about the fact that we can now talk about um fraud for the really for the first time Um, and at the same time, wherever it is, whatever state it is, uh, whatever, um, department it might be found in, we need to find it and make sure people are held accountable. Uh, I'm I'm I'm I'm of the belief that once you set law and order in place, uh, not only do we know the parent, good people know the parameters they need to stay within, but also bad people realize if they step out, they might get caught and and have to pay a price. So I'm I'm excited about having this conversation and these particular two bills I'm talking about right now, uh dealing with kids uh getting ripped off their their their aid being ripped off through this uh through ghost students and of course we see what's happening in minnesota with this what's going on with these children uh autism they cannot get their um their therapy because there's someone

mmm

trying to make millions of dollars off the process so i'm i'm excited

mmm

about this the the fact we are talking about this now today

yeah the the people that committed that fraud are just a bunch of thieves and they deserve to be put in jail for a long long time and the politicians who turn their head and look the other way are guilty of allowing it to happen and with that madam chair i yield

thank you minister scott miss canlon you're recognized

thank you um i have um had experience over time in my life before congress with um you know the issue of students being defrauded of their um student loans being coerced into applying to places like trump university or other various um for profit colleges and then the students being left holding the bag for loans but this ghost student scam is something that I had not encountered until this bill came before us so um it it sounds like from what I've read that the inspector general system at the department of education started under um started uncovering some of these issues and and this is one of the reasons we have a department of education which is still with us um because our inspectors general are so important in uncovering fraud um can you tell us a little bit about this cause it's a it's a new issue

well there there is a problem there are some scams where um people will apply you'll round up some people they'll apply to um college with no intention of ever showing up they get tell grants and student loans there's an excess which is permissible because you have living expenses,

Mm-hmm.

and when the time comes you get your refund and the fraudsters take the money and run.

OK.

Um, there's no education being provided because they never even showed up in class. There are ways that are in effect now to try to uh discover this. They're in effect, they're being tried, what we're doing is trying to codify what's already going on

mmm

and we're trying to see if it works or not well let's see if it works or not then we can codify it or if it's working you don't need to codify it cause it's working um so it it is hard to see any added value to the um to the legislation in terms of reducing fraud there is um uh plenty of um opportunity uh to use this um as um uh a weapon because uh you we can see through recent history that this administration will pick colleges and go after them with very little justification just go after them uh withholding um uh research money and that kind of thing for things that um are not related to fraud and research or anything like that uh this would be an additional tool they would have uh but obviously we need to go after those kinds of scams they are real and uh we we support the idea that we need to go after them but this bill i mean you stated a problem you have a bill that doesn't mean the bill solves the problem

mmm

doesn't mean the bill does anything other than you have a problem and you have a bill what's missing is how does a bill solve the problem It doesn't.

Well, it sounds to me like it solves one problem, it allows our republican colleagues to yell that they're combating fraud, waste and abuse without really doing anything about it.

And empowers the president to use this as an additional weapon to go after his enemies.

Well, I I understand, I mean, it it sounds like it is a bunch of fraudsters who are committing identity theft in order to get money from the federal government and absolutely, we should be going over them, but it does sound like there's a mismatch in this bill. as i understand you've offered to work with our our colleagues across the aisle to have a bill that's more narrowly tailored to have an actual remedy that meets the issue

One that actually remedies the situation, and and all this time you are dismantling the department of education, all the oversight uh uh capabilities are being uh just evaporating. And so you have a bill that has more responsibilities than nobody to really fulfill the responsibility.

Sounds like one of those efficiencies we were just talking about in our last um, our last panel, the efficiency of firing everyone and not having to pay them, but then the services don't get rendered either.

Uh-huh.

Um, anything else you want to add?

No, that's um, uh, that that's the um, um, the idea that you state a b it it's often done. I mean, it's not the first time anybody has stated a problem, and therefore you should vote for my bill without showing how the bill actually solves the problem.

Well it sounds like it needs some some more work, so thank you for your testimony. I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. I now recognize myself, uh for such time as I may consume in asking questions. Uh Mister Owens, is there anything that you wanted to add that you haven't previously said, or that you wanted to say in response to uh previous questions?

Uh I think that uh we have to recognize over the last year and a half uh we've found a a lot of uh waste abuse uh fraud that we had not known about for years so it's not a question if it's happening we now realize how it's happening we realize that fast food is not working uh i would say that the things we have already accomplished let's go and codify if it's working we're saving three hundred million dollars whatever it was that that was i just mentioned a while ago um then that means something's working let's go ahead and codify so we don't have to go back through this again we get a a bad president or a bad uh uh uh administration Let's let's uh let's make sure whatever we get we can stack on top of that until we continue to get much better at this process and make sure that the the American people realize they're not being ripped off.

All right, anything else? With that I yield back and now recognize Miss Leger-Fernandez for her time of questioning.

Thank you uh, Mister Chairman. How good to see you there. Um, so, you know, I noticed that uh we have several bills this week dealing with issues of fraud. Uh, mister Burgess, do you know the definition of gaslighting?

I I know what it means, but I can't define it for you at this moment. I know what it

Yeah.

what the process is.

Yeah. You know, there's this whole process out there where one side wants to change the reality. That's kind of what it means, right? You want somebody to believe the opposite of what's actually happening. Is that kind of what your understanding of gaslighting means? Well, today we're dealing with all these fraud bills. Uh, but the reality is we have an administration that has pardoned that has pardoned people who have stolen, fraudulently been convicted of fraud over and over again. Uh, do you know how many, uh, convicted fraudsters the president has pardoned,

No.

mister Burgess? Uh, have you heard about the guy who, uh, one point two billion, I think, dollars worth of fraud? trump pardon him you're not aware of that you didn't read about that in the newspapers

hmm

yeah uh there was recently a court case dealing with a one point seven like almost one point eight billion i was i know they came up with some silly number to try to say it was seventeen seventy six but one point billion dollars the court has reopened that case Cuz they wanna s- determine whether it was a fraud on the court, a fraud on the court. Right? Trump has made over four billion dollars in his family since he got to the presidency. So when we start talking about fraud, let's actually talk about the fact that there have been convicted fraudsters. There is potentially a fraud on the court And there has been so much money paid to Trump and his families that we have never ever before seen in the history of the United States. Now that's, I think, something we should have, is a week of looking at the level of thought that is going on in the United States right now. So, uh, Wenky, remember, you know, I might be the last Democrat ask any questions so i don't know if you wanted to respond to any of the issues that had been raised i think that the issue is that democrats we we want to go after fraud but we wanna do it in a way where we actually have a department of justice that is gonna go after fraud and not go after states just because they are democrat and that is a pattern that we are seeing from this administration. They are holding FEMA funding, they are holding disaster funding, they are holding child care funding, they are holding funding just because you of who you elected as a governor. Is that kind of a pattern we are seeing, Rankin, remember?

And and and you've seen them go after states and withhold money from blue states. Um, you've seen them go after colleges, and these bills would empower them to do more of the same. without reducing fraud. I mean, you have a bill, you have a problem. There is, fraud exists. These bills do not do anything meaningful, meaning, meaningfully, to actually reduce fraud. They empower the president to go after enemies in his revenge tour.

Do they do anything to actually make daycare more affordable for new buddy?

Nothing to make daycare more affordable, nothing to increase. Nothing to improve quality.

Right. But and, you know, we've said it before in this committee, Trump actually said, he doesn't care about those things, open quote. This is Trump talking.

And mentioned daycare specifically.

He did. He said it's not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all those individual things. They can do it on a state basis. You can't do it on a federal. Right? He's he said he doesn't really care about American's financial situation. So he doesn't care about these things. So I think that all this, all these bills are just like, let's talk about, let's put it in a title rather than taking care of it. Uh, especially if you're gonna pour it in as many fraudsters as he did. Um, I'm sorry, I might have said the fraudulent billing scheme uh stole one point three million dollars mister g- bergus for medicare and medicaid so it's one point three billion dollars um uh i'm sorry rep rep owens i used to always call you bergs because that's a nice name we did work together

no that's fine no problem you

we we we we worked on some bills together so my apologies representative owens um but yeah it was it was i'm sorry it was one point three but you don't remember that case

no

oh my god it was huge This is what happens when you don't pay attention to what's happening. Like sometimes we exist in our bubble alone, right? But one point three billion dollars,

No, no, well that's why

would you acknowledge that one point three billion dollars is a large

that's why we

amount of fraud?

That's exactly why we're talking about the bill we're talking about today, because American people are tired of the billions and billions of dollars have been ripped off.

Yeah.

The the the the children, too much child care,

Yeah.

the kids trying to go to college, uh, inflation that we're now dealing with, everybody's working because it adds up.

Yeah.

We're dealing with that finally. It's been years, and I'm thankful they were

It's been years, but your president just pardoned we, oh not just, but recently pardoned somebody who engaged in that level of war.

Yeah, I I know I I know my president is also our president is having having us have a conversation we have not had in a long long time.

Yeah, one point.

So I'm thankful for that.

Yeah, OK. Well, thank you very much. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back, now recognize the gentlelady from Indiana, Miss Hodgson, for her final question.

I'm gonna struggle with where to begin, uh, Chairman Owens. Um, at the core, these bills are addressing loopholes in federal programs that have allowed bad actors to perpetrate fraud at the expense of taxpayers and some of the most vulnerable communities. Uh, we must strengthen program integrity, um, but in these cases, um, that we are talking about, There's been a lack of oversight and proper s- proper safeguards that allowed dollars to be diverted away from real beneficiaries and undermine the confidence in these child care programs. Um, we have no doubt talked about the child care programs, uh, reported out of Minnesota, uh, where providers were receiving child care assistance dollars without actually serving any children or families. which have raised serious concerns about oversight and accountability and how funds are administrated at administrated at the state level. And this issue should be bipartisan, but one of the things that we have heard today is that fraud is not widespread. Uh, would it surprise you, um, Representative Owens, to learn that the waiting list nationally for a child care voucher is more than four hundred thousand children?

Wouldn't surprise me at all.

Okay. Would it surprise you to know that just in the Minis Minnesota fraud alone, the fraud that was found in Minnesota alone could account for an additional voucher for twenty thousand children? So when we hear our colleagues, uh, I heard, um, ranking member Scott say Republicans aren't doing anything to increase supply, doesn't it increase supply if we can cut out the fraud and and put the funding toward real actual vouchers to fit the need of the waiting list that we currently experience

what what we're doing as a republican party we're looking just at this as entrepreneurs return on investment um and and i i wanna read this to you guys cause i i've heard the same thing there's no evidence of widespread fraud uh there has um the federal government has been saying the opposite for decades waste fraud abuse has been a real problem Um, since two thousand two, the c c d b g has been identified as a program that with as a significant improper payments. Um, two thousand twenty, gao reported the estimated of, for the year twenty nineteen, the program was a prop- possibly three hundred and twenty five million in improper payments. We just went through, uh, last few months, seeing possibly billions of dollars that have been transferred to other countries. Now these are American dollars, these are American people. These are folks who sign up or they've been signed up because they know that parents want their kids, if they have autism, to be able to be addressed. And we as American people know we wanna help those folks out. So we wake up one day and find out we've been all ripped off. Not only the kids not being served, but that money is going to some other foreign country. And folks here are actually demonstrating the same time that our country is the worst place ever to live. So, I would say I'm so thankful that this wonder of time we're going through. We're finally having this conversation. If we're ever gonna get to where the family unit is important, that we can afford to live our lives, to build our dreams, uh, to not be ripped off by inflation, that, that, that invisible tax, then we have to take care of make sure we're not ripped off with this, with fraud. And we have not had this conversation as long as I can remember. So thank goodness for for President Trump, who's a business owner, who wants the best return on investment for America.

Well, let's talk, thank you, and let's talk just about, um, one of the child care centers in minnesota uh what is a leering center

that's little bit of our educational problem also i do believe that we need to address but we'll get into that so

mister scott what is a leering center

i don't know

a leering center was a child care uh facility in minnesota that received one point nine million dollars in twenty twenty five and ten million dollars since twenty nineteen in child care assistant program funding even though it was empty. The child care assistant program in Minnesota also investigated nine daycare centers across the Twin Cities that received sixty-seven million dollars over eight years but the fraud is not wide-spread. The- there was a Biden-era loophole, President Biden and and congressional Democrats, uh, there was a requirement that forced States, under a Biden-era rule, to pay child care centers in advance, basing payments on enrollment sheets rather than actual attendance. And between twenty twenty-three and twenty twenty-five, after that rule was implemented, fraud spiked from eight million in twenty twenty-three to sixteen million in twenty twenty-five even though enrollment uh at a child care center in Minnesota remained flat. There was a four point six million dollar false re-imberment reimbursement claim for future leaders early learning center in Minnesota and error rates in twenty twenty three accounted for two hundred and thirty one point four million dollars for uh failure to provide proper attendance reporting. Now, Secretary Kennedy closed those Biden-era loopholes which allowed for rampant fraud to pers- be um perpetrated on the American people, resulting in uh children who are on these wait lists, waiting for a child care voucher, legitimately waiting for a child care voucher, being unserved, um and it allowed bad actors to exploit the system across multiple states, including questions that have been raised in California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, and Minnesota, all coincidentally led by Democrats. Federal authorities cited concerns that child care benefits were being funneled through child care to f- through, um, fraudulent child care operators. Now, I believe this is the right strategy. Let's cut out this fraud. We know every dollar lost in, uh, fraud is a dollar that doesn't reach the children in need, even if it's not widespread. But these are quite wide-spread. When we think about the amount of money, we could be redirected, that could be redirected to uh the voucher system where I know we have Hoosiers from my state and probably Utahans in your state still waiting for a child care voucher to help them participate both in education and the workforce. So, my last question, Congressman Owens, is um how does strengthening fraud fraud prevention ultimately expand rather than reduce the resources available to eligible students and families.

I think you kind of highlighted earlier uh every single dollar that is saved from fraud is another dollar given to those who are supposed to give are supposed to be giving it too. We have to keep in mind we have uh a country that's really very good hearts. We don't mind paying our taxes. We we try to keep as low as possible, but we we don't we understand it's supposed to go to the good of those who need it. And we find that we're being taken advantage of. Um, at some point, the American people just, they get sick of it, they're tired of it. Uh, we now have a conversation that we've needed to have for so long. And I keep bringing back to the, what it does to the family unit, because I grew up at a time when families could afford to have one parent working, my dad was working, my mom was at home with five kids, in the sixties. It's, and my neighbor's the same way across the, uh, from the neighborhood, right across the country. We can't say that today. we have both parents working two jobs, the kids growing up working a job, they don't see each other, it's because of things like this. We're ripped off, money's been taken from our our tax, out our pockets and sent to other countries, and people living a life. And we're sitting here ask acting there's something, there's not something wrong about that. So this should be a very bipartisan process. We should all be looking at passing the Child Care Scam Act and the No Aid for Ghosts students. they're ripping our kids off they're ripping our students off why can't we agree this is something we can start with we're codified so that no matter what comes later on they won't change it and go back to what was happening before and that's how we become a more perfect union one step at a time and this is a good step to start

thank you I deal back

general lady yields back now recognize the gentleman from new york mister langworthy

thank you very much mr. chairman uh most taxpayers assume that when federal assistance goes out the door that it's going to the people that it was actually intended to help and sadly we've learned and have known that that's not always the case uh whether it's child care assistance or federal student aid every dollar lost to fraud is a dollar that isn't available for a family who actually needs help or a student who is trying to pursue their dreams in an education the right way and the ghost student scam is a great example of this someone uses a stolen or fake identity enrolls in classes receives aid takes the money and then disappears into thin air and meanwhile taxpayers are left holding the bag and in some cases innocent victims are left trying to untangle a terrible terrible mess uh chairman owens can you talk about why strengthening fraud detection and accountability it protects both taxpayers and the legitimate recipients of these programs are intended to serve

uh i think i think all of this any american goes out and works very hard uh to save to build the dreams and to find out one day that the money they've been saving is not there anymore or somebody decide they wanna take it i think we all get that uh but i think the most important thing about where we're at today is we're now realizing as a as a country it's been happening to us for a long time uh so it's not just it's somebody else that's been dealing with this it's it's all of us and we we see that it's not only happen well where our kids our children are being impacted in a negative way but the money is going to other countries. That that is an an an an an an an an an an an an an an an added uh part. I could, if you don't mind, I'd like to address also weaponization.

Is it?

Uh, just to I I have something I'm gonna read to you real quickly, but keep in mind, uh, we are weaponizing against fraud, a weapon against against those who wanna rip our our countrymen and countrywomen off. Republicans are rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse, no matter who sits in the governor's uh governor's mansion. If our colleagues feel that Democrat-led states seem to have more explaining to do, it's because they do. The data shows it. The numbers do not lie. Democrat-run states have an average CCDBG improper payment rate more than twice of Republican-led states. That's a significant gap in those uh the funds that are being being ma- being managed. But some of the anti-waste fraud and abuse measures Republicans have put together today will naturally impl- impl- implicate republicans-led states also. No state should be above scrutiny and every state should improve and can improve. Tackling fraud is a critical problem a pr- critical program like um I'm sorry, tackling fraud in in critical programs like child care assistance for working families should be a bipartisan priority. So yes, this is something we should all agree on. Um if you have been ripped off, you know it's not a good feeling, that's what I I reckon people are feeling right now.

I I think you're exactly right, Chairman Owens, I mean, i- this this should be non-controversial. I mean, when we're you're going after the opportunity for fraudsters to steal, to steal opportunities, to steal the opportunities for people to create their uh their n- their dreams and the lives that they hope to lead uh through a good education, and their lives do not get ruined by this fraud. At the end of the day, protecting taxpayer dollars and protecting legitia- legitimate recipients should go hand in hand. Uh, I appreciate the work that's gone into this legislation, and I look forward to its passage.

Can I say Can I say just one last thing?

Of course you may.

You said something a minute ago, I think it's so important. What makes our country so unique is we have the ability to dream. No matter where we start off, we can dream big and no one get there. What takes away that dream is we know that we've been ripped off, and no longer can we expect to, that the work we put in will always be there because we're realizing that the, the, the game is rigged. And so we cannot do that to our American people. Let them dream big. Let them keep their money. Let them make sure that those who need the help, we can get it to them. And let's should we hold those folks accountable that are doing doing damage to our kids and our dreams.

Thank you so much for all of your work on this topic, and I yield back, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Jack, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have, uh, one question for Mr. Owens. Um, eliminating waste, fraud and abuse was a cornerstone campaign promise for so many of us and one of the reasons why we were elected. Could you expound to this committee in closing as to how these two bills will help us achieve that goal?

Okay. Let's start off with the child scam uh, care scam act. Uh, and the and the no aid for children uh, for students act. When you when you start looking at what these these do, it's actually it's it's oversight. It's make sure there's accountability. make sure there's a system in which um there is um a sense of of when when you have report uh reports going and results and there's there's a report sort of that are looking at at what's happening with that so we can make sure we have been held accountable. It's it's knowing that as you um put the funds in that there's a back-up in which people can really see what uh how that fund is being addressed and make sure it's being taken care of. So it's just really oversight, more oversight on both, on both cases. Yeah.

I yield back. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, I've saved my questions till the end. So, um, Mister Owens, one of the most unconscionable crimes I can think of is a scam where fraudsters take money from needy families. Can you give us an example of one of these scams, so everyone is clear that these are not victimless crimes,

OK.

that people suffered as a result of them.

Yeah, you bear with me. Yeah, we've we've seen so many, I I know we had uh OK, great, thank you, guys. OK. Well, the one that we've been all talking about and I think everybody's been aware of what's happening in Minnesota, um, in Minnesota, both the CCDGB and the Feeding Our Future's, um, uh, Future Future Fraud, uh, Fraud in the, I'm sorry, and Feeding Our Future's Fraud in Child and and uh Adult Care programs were both seen. For a reason you can imagine. I'll see one second here. Okay, I'm sorry, bear with me guys. In uh twenty twenty three, the DOG pro- uh prosecuted five defendants in a scheme stealing ninety-four million dollars from government-funded child care programs for low-income families in New York um this is just this one you see here. I highlighted this particular example because the theft encompasses both CCD, BG, and CACFP programs, and because of what the the US Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General said at the time. The money stolen were tended to support New York families that greatly needed financial assistance in the securing safe and quality care for their children. He wanted to say that instead of these individuals, def- defraud federally funded child uh child care programs and deprive deserving enrollees in attempt to gain personal wealth. I I think if you start looking at what's what's been happening in not only Minnesota but California, we all know someone that uh has been impacted, trying to get on their get on their feet. And and we can we can relate to the fact that what's happened in those states, we can have the empathy to know that it's happening ar- around us all over the place. So it's now time to to address to get it get it uh get it taken care of.

You know, um, one of our colleagues said we're um gonna put in rigid judgments for administrative judgment.

Yeah.

I've often said, um, when I show people around the chamber that the person in the middle looking straight down on us is Moses, and that we really haven't needed much more by way of legislation since God sent down the ten commandments, 'cause they're pretty clear. Thou shalt not steal.

Mm-hmm.

And in this ca- in these cases, I I don't think there was a real case for ju- administrative judgments. People were stealing money that was designed to go help working families. And so, I think it's pretty clear to me that when people are doing that, that's both in the case of the Go Students Act as well as in this act. And so it it's again pretty clear to me that when they stole money from these programs, they were hurting people. So they're not victimless crimes. They're hurting the people the money was supposed to say help, and they're hurting hard-working taxpayers. Um, uh, I'll ask you one more question, and the depart- about the Department of Education and the strides it's making Mm.

What's that, what's that? One second. Okay. What the bill um does is put some safeguards. It it it identif identify fraud detection systems, screen and and access a FAFSA. A requirement for institutions to verify the identity of flagged applications before disbursement of federal dollars. That makes sense. Before you send money out, make sure it's it's verified. And a new program, a review priority category for schools with patterns of disbursing aid for to flagged applicants while excluding schools that demonstrate compliance with identity fund- uh uh verification requirements. We also make sure the department can use existing fraud detection systems, rather than having a to create a new system from scratch. It will also allows the department to innovate in the future as uh as process match uh methods change and technology advance it's gonna just say, to that point, we have to understand these entrepreneurs, they're just bad ones, they have bad intents. So for us to to make sure we stay ahead of that, good entrepreneurs have to figure out how to be innovative. So we have to make sure we're always always changing and and and and adapting. Um, although the bill complements the department's current efforts, altogether, the bill complements the department's current efforts and ensures they protect students and taxpayers far into the future. Can I just add one last thing that I think is so important? Um, I can't say this enough, what what makes our country a great culture is we believe in family, we believe in dreams, and we've been under attack for a long time. Uh, if we, I mean, I, I mean, in my time I've seen what it is. go from a two family house to one where everybody's working this is how it happens when when our money's taken inflation goes up we lose our dreams and all of a sudden we we're we're we're we're caught in this bind so i would say that the two things that we're now the two bills i'm now talking about we'll start to deal with that let's make sure we take care of our kids stop child care scams act make sure every child that needs help get the help and no aid for gold students for students to wanna get support, that money should be going to them instead of Proster's.

Thank you very much. I believe, gentlemen, all the members who wanted to ask questions have asked questions, so you are excused.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Everybody.

I now welcome our third panel, Representative Smith and Representative Davis, from the Committee on Ways and Means. Your full statement will be submitted for the record. We ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. Representative Smith, I welcome your testimony.

Thank you.

I I smiled at her. I just couldn't make a conversation.

You don't need to help this seat. They won't be here. They're just sitting right here.

What? Ooh.

They're just sitting right here. They're just sitting right here. I'm pretty sure.

I mean. Mister Davis, while you're being seated, I'd like to recommend, I mean, like to welcome this McGovern. to our room today. I'm not sure why she's choosing to spend her precious time here, but we welcome you, Lisa.

Make it make it be made.

Make you be able. OK. Representative Smith, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chairwoman Fox and Ranking Member McGovern, I look forward to today's discussion about the committee's ongoing efforts to protect taxpayers and enhance the integrity of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or TANF program. TANF provides over sixteen billion dollars annually to states, tribes, and territories. This funding supports local efforts aimed at delivering help to low-income families including through direct cash assistance and non-assistance services. TANF was created to help families move from welfare to work, promote self-sufficiency, and support low-income parents and children. But that mission is undermined when taxpayer dollars are not properly protected. When federal welfare funds are vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse, the consequences are real. States face weaker incentives to ensure dollars are spent appropriately. Ta- taxpayers lose confidence in the program, and most importantly, families who truly need assistance lose out because resources are not preserved for them. Since my tenure as the Chairman of the subcommittee overseeing TANF in the one hundred fifteenth Congress, we have been conducting oversight of the program, and what we've found is very concerning. The Ways and Means Committee's investigation and hearings have exposed a critical need for reform to end the status quo that allows TANF funds to be diverted from supporting families in need might I add those families most in need across the country, uh, that lessens the focus on work and leaves tax dollars increasingly vulnerable to fraud. We have seen States treat TANF resources like a slush fund that politicians can dip into when bad governance leads to budget shortfalls. In fact, a series of reports produced by GAO last year determined that the non-assistance portion of TANF funding, which consumes nearly eighty percent of the program's total spending, lacked basic safeguards to ensure funds are spent empowering low-income Americans. This ultimately hurts not only TANF bef- beneficiaries, but also taxpayers. The Preventing Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in TANF Act addresses four key areas when it comes to the lack of guardrails, and the proliferation of fraud in our welfare system. The first change focuses on ensuring States are using TANF funds appropriately, and in a timely manner. Currently, States are holding nearly eight billion dollars in unspent funds. This bill requires States to spend down their funding within a defined three-year period, ensuring tax dollars benefit the low-income families they are designed to help. Secondly, the bill improves transparency by requiring better tracking and reporting of improper payments. a reform that will help policymakers and the public know whether vital resources are being well spent. TANF is one of the few federal program federal programs not required to measure improper payments under the Payment Integrity Information Act. This is a long-standing recommendation made by GAO, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, HHS has requested authority to measure improper payments. Third, a policy in this legislation would prevent would prevent states from supplanting state and local spending with federal TANF dollars. Lastly, we have a policy that I have led to establish an income threshold of two hundred percent of the federal poverty line for recipients to, to be eligible for TANF. This is a common-sense guardrail that targets critical welfare dollars to families most in need. One case that I have always remembered is an example from Michigan where the state was found to have diverted upwards of one billion dollars of TANF since two thousand seven to fund scholarships to middle class and higher income students to attend private schools in the state. That type of diversion of funds is indicative of the nobody's watching atmosphere that has made TANF vulnerable. That is not a partisan issue. Even the Biden administration acknowledged that TANF funds were not being used to help the individuals who need them most. If Congress is going to provide billions of dollars each year for TANF, we have a responsibility to ensure those dollars are helping the families The Preventing Waste, Fraud and Abuse in TANF Act will reduce fraud, restore accountability, and help preserve TANF benefits for families who truly need them. Thank you for the opportunity to testify here to the Rules Committee. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Smith. Mr. Davis, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Rankin member McGovern, and members of the Rules Committee. This bill purports to be about protecting taxpayers by reducing fraud and waste in the temporary assistance for needy families our TANF program. In fact, it has nothing to do with either. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will produce no savings, the bill would not enable a single fraud investigation or recovery, At our mark-up, the majority blocked us from even considering Representative Chu's amendment to create and fund a fraud control unit to go after contractors and subgrantees, which is the greatest source of fraud in Tannif. Representative Chu and I, together with our democratic colleagues on ways and means, introduced that proposal for the first time over two years ago. In contrast, our republican colleagues held a hearing seemingly to excuse multimillionaire athlete Brett Faber from censure for stealing millions of tariff dollars from poor children in Mississippi to fund a volleyball stadium and invest in healthcare stocks. Rather than work with us, Republicans chose to introduce this bill with no fraud fighting provisions less than forty-eight hours before our committee mark-up. What this bill would do is give the Trump administration, Health and Human Services, new power to define error rates for state TANF programs. which could in turn be used to freeze funding, levy financial penalties, or force states to hand over confidential personal information about beneficiaries that is otherwise protected by law. The last time we were talking about TANF, it was because the Department of Health and Human Services abruptly froze ten billion dollars in critical social service funding for five states including my home state of illinois to exact revenge on governors who stood up to president trump fortunately under current law the administration's authority to weaponize supports for low income families is limited and the courts issued a restraining order. If they had not, the Century Foundation estimates it would have cost struggling families four hundred million dollars in lost earnings and help. TANF already assists for too few families in poverty because those who designed it intended it that way. just like those who are celebrating the four million people now going hungry because of snap cuts. This bill would give the administration power to make things even worse for those families. If republicans want to reduce fraud, waste and abuse, they should stop accusing hard-working parents and look to the graft and vanity projects they keep enabling. over seventeen months he's been since he's been back in office president trump increased his net worth by over four billion dollars selling cryptocurrency insider trading and leveraging his position most recently the president spent five million dollars of taxpayer money to coat bronze statues in gold leaf enough money to buy twenty thousand families groceries for a week i urge you to make in order the amendments my colleagues and i have offered to add real broad fighting provisions to the bill and to hold the administration accountable if they do not use TANF to help families and i urge you to open their eyes to the massive amounts of money this administration is stealing from our constituents Thank you Madam Chair, and I give back.

Um, thank you both, um Miss Fischbach you're recognized.

Thank you Madam Chair, and uh you know certainly TANF is uh is a great program trying to help vulnerable um vulnerable families um but the program itself obviously needs to be strengthened against fraud because we have seen uh fraud rampant in in all all different kinds of programs and there's always room for improvement there we should not ever stop trying to improve and trying to s- save taxpayer dollars and make these uh make the uh reduce the fraud the best we can but um wasn't there a non-partisan government accountability office that issued um five different reports on the need to improve TANF mister mister chair

yes that is that is correct a pretty uh comprehensive uh study that was done over a two year period of time

and maybe you can speak to some of those vulnerabilities which were pointed out and puts a ten of it at higher risk for fraud

why i i would say broadly speaking we just don't have a very good handle on where the dollars are going much less uh the uh uh we also lack the authority to go after uh the fraud that's that is out there so as i uh spoke about earlier uh president biden uh his administration requested this same authority that the that the trump administration has requested that overall helps us make sure that the that the money gets to the folks who need it the most i mean that that's what TANF is about it's for needy families i would say the neediest among us uh to to get the resources and to make a positive difference and i think it's important that we we have flexibility for the states that we don't become overly prescriptive on how the dollars are spent. But we we need to make sure that there is accountability out there, especially when we know, based on the report, that states have have swapped out, you know, have have used these dollars instead of general fund, and because the requirements are are so um loose, I guess, or or lacking, that uh there's that flexibility I think has gone too far because we're trying to tighten that up so there are various provisions in in the bill to tighten that up. All because we want to get the resources to folks who need it the most.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and and it is, it is critical because every dollar we spend is a taxpayer dollar that we collected.

That's right.

Um, and we, we have a great responsibility to the taxpayers to make sure that we are doing everything we can to prevent fraud from prevent their money from being wasted. Um, and um, and so I, I appreciate that we are addressing a lot of the fraud that's going on or trying to get at it, trying to make sure that we are most efficient because for every dollar we save in fraud is a dollar that could go to a needy family uh uh an additional dollar or an additional dollar we do not have to collect from taxpayers those other working families that are working hard to pay their taxes. So I appreciate that and um I support your support the legislation and with that I yield back, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Fishbot. Mister McGovern, you're recognized.

Yeah, well thank you, and let me just say first of all that uh, you know, since we're talking about uh taxpayer dollars, that every dollar spent on this illegal war in Iran is stolen from the American people. Um, and nobody seems to care about uh that it's not offset and that it's just adding to the, to the, to the debt. But in any event, having said that, Chairman Smith, I think we all agree uh, that uh we should be working together to get it go after fraudsters and protect taxpayer funds. or being stolen or misused i think there's nobody who disagrees with that and i just wanna make sure i'm clear based on what you said so i mean so you don't you can't tell us how much fraud is occurring um or is estimated to be occurring in the TANF program in your home state or in in the country right we you don't know right

there there is lacking authority for hhs to to get that information

alright alright alright and with respect to section three of your bill which sets new time uh which which sets new income limits. Can you tell me how many current TANF recipients would be kicked off of benefits uh from this provision?

Well, when you look at uh do you mean the two hundred percent of federal poverty level,

Yep.

that that uh requirement? Yeah, that that's the one that I've been working on for some time. That's you know, that that would be an outer boundary uh in in its description of

Do do we know how many people would be pushed off the program?

you know how many scholarship recipients in in the state of michigan that that uh would be considered middle class uh that weren't really needing uh that kind of especially those dollars but they were checking the boxes uh of the federal requirements that are so loose but not making it to folks who who needed them

so so we we don't know we don't know a specific answer on that right

correct

and can you tell me what the medium tan of benefit is for a family of three

medium uh um i'll i'll

i i i could tell you it's five hundred and fifty two dollars a month

ok

um so you know and so i i take it i get i get i get the point that we uh you know that that we should be concerned about fraud and the misuse of taxpayer funds everywhere not just when it comes to social safety net programs like TANF right i mean you care about fraud and abuse i would assume in all programs right in all in all aspects of our government

that that's my sense i mean we've had discussions in the ways and means committee uh from both sides uh of of concerns about fraud

and in fact with respect to medicare fraud you said in april and i quote fraud " erodes trust and diverts resources away from the people who truly need care" which is why i will continue to call on my colleagues in congress to come together to put an end to it end quote um that was your quote and um i guess my next question is why aren't you guys similarly concerned that donald trump has pardoned or reduce the prison time for twenty one individuals who have been found guilty and were convicted of healthcare fraud

this bill is not about that um

well it's about fraud right i mean so i mean this is fraud too and this is in the medicare

well when this this is tailored uh very narrowly to TANF and uh the need to tighten up TANF so that resources get it to the folks who need it the most

yeah i mean i you know i mean again we're we're here talking about fraud why isn't there a bill on on on this on you know

well there there could be a number of questions why don't we have bills for a lot of different things but that i'm i'm here to talk about this

well well well i mean you guys are in charge well what about phil philip s forms

respectfully

i mean who was sentenced in twenty nineteen to twenty years in prison for stealing one point three billion dollars a billion with a b from the medicare program the largest healthcare fraud scheme ever charged by the department of justice i i'm sure you're aware of this trump commuted his sentence uh do you have any opinion on that

i'm here to talk about the bill uh at hand here that is

but you're yeah but you

uh making sure that the resources get it to folks who need it the most

but you're you're here you you're here to talk about fraud right ok let's let's

i'm here to talk about tana being more effective at helping the folks who need it

let's go lightning let's go lightning rod since i don't seem to be getting any answers here if somebody intent intentionally commits tax fraud should the irs care about that yes or no

i mean i i'm here to talk about tanaf

i i mean the topic really is fraud i mean we're talking about we had a bill before uh before you were here talking about fraud i and um we we have another bill on fraud this is fraud week apparently uh i mean i uh this is not a i mean i i don't know let me say if somebody intent intentionally commits tax fraud yes the irs should care about that i don't know why that such a controversial answer answer uh uh question do you think they they ought to audit somebody if they're committing tax fraud

i'm i'm here to talk about TANF this legislation is about TANF and making sure that resources get it to the folks who need it the most

yeah i again i'm a little puzzled cause you are on the ways and means committee right i mean you write tax policy

right

uh you oversee um the programs that we're talking about here today what what about trump's recent settlement with his own administration uh which initially resulted in a one point eight billion dollar slush fund for his allies which now i'm told by we we're being told by the acting attorney general may be on hold but it also include a blanket immunity for trump and his family for tax crimes or any other crimes that they may have committed i mean yes or no do you do you support that

i'm here to talk about tanf and how we can make sure that resources with tanf dollars

yeah well let me let me just say

make it to the folks who need it the most

that yeah

hmm

uh i am outraged that trump's recent settlement with his own with his own administration resulted in what it what it all all this basically protection from audits and potential criminal investigations I think is as corrupt as hell and it would give the Trump family as I read the settlement um and give Trump himself an unlimited number of get out of jail free cards for any crime that could be investigated and prosecuted by the federal government including potential tax crimes insider trading bribes and kickbacks any allegations of sexual assault by trump in the epstein files or any contracts that trump has steered toward companies he and his family are investigating and again i wanna ask unanimous consent to to put the settlement in the record if i could

without objection

um you know i i i guess representative smith i mean i i i would just say if you guys really cared about fraud and corruption you would commit right now to doing everything you could to kill this corrupt settlement. Um, because that's what it is. And it is stunning to me, it is, that given the fact that it is so blatantly corrupt, that nobody, um, on your side wants to say anything. Will you publicly commit right now to killing this illegal and corrupt settlement?

I'm here to talk about TANF and the subject legislation and making sure that the resources of TANF make it to the intended recipients and those are, uh, Americans who need it the most.

So I asked you if committing tax fraud is a bad, uh, is bad. And you refused or couldn't answer the question. And I think it's because you guys are all afraid of the guy in the White House. Um, and the American people, you know, are watching this, and quite frankly they're stunned and horrified, uh, by the complicity of the majority in this House, um, in allowing him to get away with all that he's getting away with. So, I don't have any further questions. I, I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Mister Scott, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'd just like to thank Lisa for coming today. Your husband's on very good behavior now, and I hope you'll come tomorrow, too. Or next week or whenever we're back. But I do hope it's not tomorrow, but it's good to see you, and I would just like to point out to my colleague, uh, from Worcestershire that the that

All right, well.

It it it it

It's a great event for itself, but In a Worcester. OK.

Fair enough. Alright.

None of those were.

Um, I - I would ju- I would just remind you that the man in the White House, Donald J. Trump, got a record number of electoral college votes. And with all of the things that y'all did to him through corrupt DAs and a corrupt FBI and everything else, the American citizens decided he was much better than what the Democratic Party had to offer. so donald trump is the president of the united states because the american citizens put him in the white house for a second time

but that doesn't absolve him of his current crimes

he is the president of the united states after all of what y'all did to him going all the way back to previous administrations where the fbi was spying on his campaign and all of the corrupt das and everything and all of the charges y'all is trumped up against the president of the united states is donald j trump with a record number of electoral college votes and so uh

is is he above the law

no he's not above the law

yeah

but he's the president of the united states he's the president of the united states

yeah

and so um this is about getting rid of fraud and waste and abuse is that correct

that is correct

that's what uh so i just

but more importantly making sure that folks who need it the most receive the help that they need.

Yeah. So so I will tell you, I support a lot of these programs. But I think that the integrity in the programs matter. And most of the people I represent support the programs. But they want the integrity in the system. What they don't like is paying taxes that go to a bunch of fraudsters like they've seen Minneapolis, Minnesota, I think is the best example of it, where their own legislature legislature said we need an investigation here because of the fraud in two thousand, going all the way back to nineteen, and you had a governor and attorney general and and a bunch of other people that wouldn't touch it, because it was gonna mess up their political base, their donor base, and they didn't wanna disrupt that in any way, shape, form, or fashion. So, uh, I I don't I don't have any further questions. Mister Smith, if you've got anything that you would like to add, you're welcome to. Other than that, I'll I'll yield my time back to the

chair i i i've stated a lot of it but i'm happy happy to take other questions

thank you miss ganland you're recognized

please don't leave

i'll yield some time to mister mcgovern

yeah i i wasn't gonna go here but um

is that a lie

you know yeah you know i got

yeah

but donald trump has pardoned or issued commutations for twenty one uh people convicted of healthcare fraud This is at the same time when you guys have been kicking millions of hardworking families off of health coverage uh under the guise of preventing fraud and abuse. And here's, I wanna ask you in any of his consent to put this in a record, but here's the one thing all these people have in common. They're all supporters of Donald Trump. And, you know, and I agree with you, I will concede that Donald Trump is president. Uh, but he's not king. Um, and so when we see settlements like the one that he just uh d- uh you know negotiated uh with our government with the ir you know you know it was just basically a blanket pardon for him and his families i gotta tell you alarm bells should be going off in everybody's head not just on the democratic side but on the republican si- on the republican side so um you know this is a you know the the you wanted to talk about fraud well fraud is happening right before our very eyes and you guys are silent and i thank the general lady for yielding

thank you and i do just wanna correct the record i mean kelvin coolidge got more electoral college votes than donald trump did and so if that's how we're measuring

i i'm not really sure either

whatever um at any rate i think as as mr. mcgovern was suggesting TANF is not a lavish program with the um average benefits for for a family five hundred and fifty dollars you said

that's cash i believe uh i guess it's true yeah yeah

Right.

Which is only part of the program.

Sure.

Only about twenty percent of the program.

Right, but when we see um prosecutions for Tana fraud against an individual recipient, it tends to be in the hundreds or maybe the thousands, right? But the biggest Tana fraud we've seen in this country was in Mississippi, where an institution diverted uh seventy-seven million dollars intended for

Oh no, it would. It would.

It would. OK, we'll just

This bill would address that because every member of Congress that I've talked to, both sides of the aisle, was highly offended by the abuse of those ten of dollars in Mississippi and

Well, then they should be highly offended by the fact that this administration has said that they don't have to pay that money back. The hundred and one, uh, million dollar restitution that was supposed to occur has been excused by this administration We've also seen This administration regularly handing out no-bid contracts to friends and political allies to do things like repaint the uh reflecting pool. And this excusing of fraud when it's not on a massive scale seems to be a hallmark of this administration. What about Lawrence Duran? He was sentenced to fifty years for defrauding Medicare of two hundred million dollars. That's two hundred million taxpayer dollars. But This president gave him a get out of jail free card and he didn't have to make restitution. We've seen this happen time after time. So, you know, if if the concern is about fraud, then that's where we should be doing some investigation. But this bill isn't about fighting fraud. It's an attack on poor people. Um If we were serious here about fighting fraud, waste, and abuse, you'd start with where the money is, where the corruption is. that start they would start with the self dealing that we're seeing coming out of this White House. So, um, I think this is yet another bill, we've seen several today, where there's a lot of talk about fraud, but the bills that we're seeing aren't attacking the massive fraud that is being perpetrated upon the American people. I yield back.

Mister Griffith, you're recognized.

Yes, sir. Mister Smith, did you have anything that you wish to add on the end of the discussion?

Well, I I know that uh the Mississippi case was raised there and and I I wanna add emphasis at uh how offended all of the members were of the of the ways and means committee, both both sides of the aisle. Uh, and that uh it's my understanding that there's not a final decision that the the uh this all overall case is still under review by the administration. So I don't think anything's been finalized there. but that case highlights the need to do our bill to make sure like the the portion that i've been working on for several years to make sure that no one who makes above two hundred percent of federal poverty receives the benefits because the benefits are intended for folks below that threshold and that that's even a pretty generous uh uh margin there uh to to work with with the flexibility

mr. smith would you would you give the figure for what two hundred percent of poverty is for a family of three because people don't realize what a high number that is i think it's important that you

a family of three would be roughly a hundred thousand

hundred thousand dollars

for a family of three

family of three is two

two hundred percent of federal poverty

two hundred percent of poverty ok

mr. smith did you have anything else you wish to add

uh no that's That's sufficient for now.

Ma- w- w- would would Mr. Griffith

Right.

I appreciate that. I will yield to the

yield

Adam Chair.

I've been doing some calculations on this and I think it's really important. We're talking about percentages here. So, uh, a family of three, two hundred percent of poverty, you said is two hundred thousand.

R- one hundred thousand.

One hundred, excuse me, one hundred thousand dollars. The calculations I have are that in the, you can be two hundred percent of poverty, which is one hundred thousand dollars, and you could be drawing, in addition to that, from taxpayers, sixty-five thousand two hundred dollars, in terms of benefits. So, you have people in this country, on TANF, making more money from taxpayers than the average working person in this country.

Let me also add, though, that the practice of the states, even though the flexibility exists to go higher, the the practice amongst most states is one hundred percent of of poverty for cash assistance.

OK, so one hundred percent, that's fifty thousand dollars.

Roughly, yes.

Right? So, in addition to that money, you get SNAP, you get Medicaid, you get housing, um, and there's one other that I've left off. So, you could have people in this country being paid from other, from taxpayers. They are not taxpayers. They're being given money from hard-working taxpayers A hundred and sixty-five thousand dollars in benefits. I just think that has been lost in this discussion tonight because it's not come up at all. And I find that really egregious. The people in my district, their average salary, I believe, is about fifty-eight thousand dollars. Those are people who are out working construction, roofers, people in my own family working in the nursery landscaping business, who make less than fifty-eight thousand dollars a year, they're paying taxes to provide a hundred and sixty-five thousand dollars in benefits. That and we can't even track it Because we do not have the accountability. Uh, Congresswoman Fischbach asked you a question I think I was going to ask you, and that is that GAO has asked us, both Democrats and Republicans, to look into the abuse. But this is my understanding, and I think the American people are pretty fed up that this is happening in our country. and that we are not calling a halt to it.

Okay, let let let me if I might um correct the record here, two hundred percent of the lot of numbers of a lot of numbers floating around here, two hundred percent of federal poverty is fifty-one thousand

Sixty-one thousand.

for a family of three, for a family of three.

Okay, you gave the figure of a hundred thousand.

Right.

I didn't know what it was.

Now Yeah.

Okay, so it's sixty-one thousand.

So Right. Now, uh, there are a number of

But they get free medical care

uh

which is the most expensive thing that we have in this country right now. So they qualify for Medicaid, OK? So they get sixty-one thousand dollars in cash payments, right? That's cash payments.

No, the the the one hundred percent of federal poverty is cash payments.

Six

That's the practice of the States, even though it's not required.

OK, so one hundred percent

Right.

of poverty is sixty-one thousand dollars.

for

correct

uh one hundred percent of federal poverty for a family of three is twenty five thousand

twenty five thousand so they're getting twenty five thousand dollars

now let me let me say that there are examples of of beneficiaries of TANF making a hundred thousand dollars to recei- families making a hundred thousand dollars or perhaps even more receiving a scholarship from states to a college scholarship not necessarily to the local community college or the state university

OK. Let's go back. I wanna make sure I got the right numbers. The cash benefits to somebody on TANF, let's say, a hundred percent of poverty. What is a hundred percent of poverty?

Hundred well, for a single person, it's the fifteen thousand.

fifteen what's a family of three cause that number was huge

family of three is twenty eight thousand

twenty eight thousand dollars is ok

uh family of three sorry i'm sorry twenty five thousand eight hundred

twenty five eight ok alright and so in addition to cash benefits from tanf they get snap they get medicaid which is it's free. They they get total free health care. There is no payment for it. They get housing benefits. And what are the housing benefits for a family of three? How much can you get for housing?

I can't speak to that

Cuz you

as this is a a TANF related hearing.

OK. Well, it requires at least a two bedroom house, right? I know I had a constituent in my district who had four kids, and they had to have a five bedroom house paid for by the taxpayers. So, we're talking about a lot of money going to these families when it sounds like they're not getting, they're getting food stamps,

Yeah.

Medicaid, housing, and the cash benefits.

Well, I I would argue that the beneficiaries of, say, a college scholarship program through a few states, they may they're probably not qualifying for other benefits, but they're qualifying for the ten of dollars. And that's not worth the dollars the full

They're being side tracked. It's being side tracked into a scholarship.

Right. Right.

Yeah. But I do think it's important, I'm I'm taking up Mr. Griffith's time, but I do think it's important that we put the total dollars in perspective for the American people. Cuz they're, you're talking about poverty level, poverty level is pretty high in this country. And we add on to that a lot, coming from taxpayers. People getting TANF are not taxpayers for the most part. there are very few who would be taxpayers. Uh, so I think it, oh, they're getting uh free child care. We had a program, we had, before you, we were discussing child care. So

But it is conceivable, though, that folks who do pay taxes still qualify for TANF dollars. And that's what we're trying to to rein in to make sure we we channel these dollars in a better direction to help the folks who need it the most.

Yeah. So, sixty five thousand dollars tax-free is what most people are getting. It, and Medicaid has no limit on it. So it could be a lot more than that. Thank you, Mister Griffith.

Madam Chair, I give back.

Uh, Mister Nagoose.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I wanna say thank you to Mister Smith for providing a really important clarification about midstream there because the numbers that uh with all respect uh that the chairwoman was using initially and she's describing a range of her constituents uh who you know were making fifty thousand dollars fifty five thousand dollars fifty seven thousand dollars and so forth and and those individuals were paying uh for you know these benefits for others you clarified and so we can now operate under this shared understanding of the facts two hundred percent of the federal poverty level for a family of three is fifty-four thousand, six hundred and forty dollars. That sound about right to you, Mister Smith?

Roughly, yes.

Okay, great. So under this bill, right? Take a step back. Under existing law, tell me if I'm wrong. Any family that makes more than one hundred percent a federal poverty level is ineligible for cash payments from TANF, correct?

Roughly speaking, yes.

Okay, great. Thank you for that. That's important clarification for the chairwoman to understand.

For the cash benefits, but that's only twenty percent of TANF dollars.

I I understand. We're gonna talk about the rest of the benefits, but Correct. And we're gonna go through all the other benefits, but let's just I wanna make sure we're all operating under the same set of facts. So if you are a family making a hundred percent of the federal poverty level, you are not eligible for the cash payment part of TANF. Right? This bill doesn't touch that. Correct?

Correct.

Okay. Now. If you are making two hundred and one percent of the federal poverty level under your bill, you are no longer eligible under TANF for the other basket of benefits that are available in that program. Correct?

Of of TANF benefits?

Correct.

Well,

Childcare, all of the other, the litany of benefits that you've described, this bill basically says, hey, you know what, we're capping it at two hundred percent,

Right.

a federal poverty level, right?

Right.

Okay. So, if you are a family in Kearney, Nebraska, of three

It's Kearney, Nebraska.

Kearney, I apologize, Coloradans in Nebraska, as you know, we've got a tortured history, so I apologize for the mispronunciation of the Kearney, Nebraska. If you're a family of three in Kearney, Nebraska, making fifty five thousand dollars a year. You are not eligible under your bill for any TANF benefits, right?

Once you exceed the two hundred percent, you're no longer.

That is the, that's what I'm describing, the two hundred percent is fifty four thousand six hundred and forty dollars. So a family of three in Nebraska, in your district, that makes fifty five thousand dollars a year would not be eligible for any of these benefits.

Correct.

Okay. So, you're making fifty-five thousand dollars a year. I was looking up, uh, you know, spending some time on using Google, which is, uh, I I don't wanna necessarily say that, uh, this is the most accurate barometer for cost. You would know better than I would about the costs in your district, but how much does it cost a family of three, you know, two bedroom home for a mortgage for a rent, what, two thousand dollars a month in your

It would be very considerably, but

Sure, give me a range.

um, it's more affordable in my district than yours.

i'm not so sure that's the case like what a lot of rural areas in my district uh uh that uh you know it depends upon obviously the locality and and all the rest but based off of what i found fifteen hundred dollars two thousand dollars seems like an accurate parameter for a family in your district different parts of your district fair enough

now that the two hundred percent of federal poverty does not necessarily line up with other programs

sure i'm not i'm not saying that they might not be eligible for some other you know uh programs outside of the ten of i'm just asking you for a Nebraska family doesn't seem like I would be wrong to suggest that it might be costing them two thousand dollars a month, twenty four thousand dollars a year,

Mm-hmm.

for their housing. Right?

Family of three could, well, I, this is going to vary widely across the country again. This bill

Okay, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh.

is, is a very diligent effort to make sure that folks who need the resources the most

Those are reduced number. No, but here's the thing. Okay. Let, let me walk you through my math,

receive the resources.

let me walk you through my math. fifty five thousand dollars a year right family of three in your district paying twenty four thousand dollars a year so two thousand dollars a month to rent a home ok paying call it what twenty four hundred dollars a year for car insurance they own a car paying five thousand dollars a year for their water bill their electricity bill right paying i don't know a thousand dollars a month for groceries how many you have How many children do you have?

Two.

Two? I have two as well. I don't know how much money you're spending on groceries on an average basis, but, uh, you know, thousand dollars a month, fifteen hundred dollars a month, right? Twelve thousand dollars a year, fifteen thousand dollars a year. It adds up pretty quick, Mr. Smith. And I guess what I'm suggesting to you is I, I don't think that the American people would quite understand your effort to prevent that family that's making fifty-five thousand dollars a year in Nebraska from being able to access child care benefits w- at the same time that the Republican Congress has passed tax breaks for some of the richest Americans in our country. I I just I understand your larger point. Obviously, you don't want, you know, families making five hundred percent of the feve- federal poverty level from accessing you. I think the example you cited was a college scholarship. But this is a really exacting standard that you all are imposing in this bill. And I guess that's what I'm trying to better understand. Why why'd you pick two hundred percent? Why not two hundred and twenty percent or two hundred and fifty percent?

It's had it's it's had considerable bipartisan supports uh over time and you know it's a recommendation by GAO a as well that various components of the bill and that um there there's been bipartisan interest though at the two hundred percent threshold, because unlimited

But you keep mentioning a hundred thousand dollars. I guess this is my point. You, every example I've heard from you has been, there's a family making a hundred thousand dollars a year, they shouldn't access a scholarship. Or there's a family making a hundred thousand dollars a year, they shouldn't be able to access, uh, you know, a particular, I don't know, a job fair, whatever the case it is, a basket of benefits under TANF. Do you really, you honestly believe that a family making fifty five thousand dollars in Nebraska shouldn't be able to access any TANF benefits? That that's your position?

I propose that, that number. in that that's in the legislation and i think it's a thoughtful approach

but

and in many many many cases that is is very more than sufficient now there's going to be a variety of opinions i i i get that but the fact of the matter is

well that's rough

we we were hearing about numbers in practice that are much smaller than this but when you when you see dollars ten of dollars escape to other areas, and, which is effectively away from the folks who need it the most, I w- I hope that would concern all of us.

But then, th-

I I hear you. And,

Set it at two hundred and fifty percent.

and, when when the State of California diverts more than one billion dollars per year from TANF uh for six hundred fifty I mean uh that helps six hundred and fifty thousand college students and then there's documentation that they called the scheme a fund swap so that the state uses

I hear you.

tax or TANF funds to replace general fund dollars.

So let's come up with a surgical tool to target what you're describing. My point is that the collateral damage here are gonna be families making fifty-five thousand dollars a year, in Nebraska, in Colorado. Families making sixty thousand dollars a year. And I just don't understand why we can't negotiate and find that balance to say,

No, I No, but

you know what, okay,

that's going to get away from us on on on several fronts because

if they're Well

We we have to establish the threshold because it it makes sense that we help the folks who need it the most.

I think, uh, and I hear you, and so I just agree to disagree, my view is that that family making fifty-five thousand dollars in Nebraska or in Colorado, um, that they deserve the ability to access again, we're not talking about cash payments, the child care assistance programs, the job fair programs, that exists under TANF i you wanna talk about fraud

well yeah

i'm happy to talk about fraud uh miss scanlon questioned you regarding the mississippi case you said i i think the word i wrote down the phrase you gave was uh weird i i wrote it down cause i was i was struck by it you said you were uh deeply what was the

offended

what was that

offend probably deeply offended

offended that's right you said so this is the mississippi case right hundred billion dollar

right

uh well seventy seven million dollars that was diverted fraudulently embezzled out of taniff and mississippi

and and it was a what seems to be a pretty concerted effort to get after those dollars

correct correct correct and there was

knowing that it wasn't going to where the dollars are intended to go

and there was a hundred million dollar penalty imposed by the biden administration and the trump administration rescinded that penalty and you said you were

it's under review

it's under well it

right now

it was issued a year and a half ago and the department, HHS, essentially clawed that back, and as you said that process is now ongoing, correct? Right? They're they're

Uh, it's under review.

they're reviewing it.

Correct.

And you're deeply offended by that fraud. Right?

The the we were talking about TANF, that was a TANF issue,

I hear you.

uh, absolutely,

And and you're deeply offended by it.

this this legislation goes after stuff like this.

My question is this. I I okay, so my question is this, have you asked or suggested to HHS that they ought to impose the penalty?

Uh, I I've not done that at this point. I I'm

It's been a while. They this was rescinded

I understand, I understand. I again, I'm I'm I'm not at the

a year ago.

in the enforcement category there.

Well, but you said you were offended.

And that

If you're offended by it, why not tell the HHS?

But

You know what? The worst, one of the worst frauds in TANF history that the Biden administration went after and that the Trump administration rescinded and now supposedly is they've they've Suggested, it's in review, it's in limbo. Right? It's ongoing limbo. If you are so offended, l- you know what? Why don't we do it together, Mr. Smith? Why don't you and I partner up and we will tell,

Sorry.

we'll send a letter to HHS saying, you know what? We need to get after Tana Fraud and you all need to take drastic action to ensure that the taxpayers of Mississippi who were swindled and bamboozled and embezzled from, that they ultimately are able to recover. I'm I'm in if you're in.

Well, I I'm I'm here to talk about this legislation.

That's a no?

I I That's not necessarily a no, but I'm here to talk about the legislation,

Okay.

and I realize you want to talk about some some other things,

I saw other things, it's tandem fraud.

but to your

That's what this bill is all about, Madam Chair,

to

it's tandem fraud.

to your to your question

I think the chairwoman agrees with me, she may join me on this letter, I don't know. In any event, I'll yield back, I I agree, uh

to your to your question about the, uh, two hundred percent. Yield back, yeah.

I I I I mean, I'm happy to engage if the chairwoman would like,

Yield back.

okay,

Okay.

alright.

Well, to be continued.

It's the highest. Good. Does that

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do not have any questions for this panel.

Thank you. Let me commend.

Thank you very much, uh, and and, you know, thank you for, uh, engaging in this conversation because there's been a couple of, uh, words of what you've said that have also struck me. Cuz as you were describing, what really angers you uh is wasn't just uh TANF fraud and what happened in Mississippi you also don't want States creating slush funds right you're opposed to the concept of these slush funds I heard you say that and you're

with with TANF dollars

the TANF dollars what about slush funds with taxpayer

uh those are those are federal dollars that are within our jurisdiction

what about what about slush funds with taxpayer dollars

TANF dollars

taxpayer dollars

are you are you within the TANF context I'm I'm here to talk about TANF

taxpayer dollars taxpayer dollars We should would you also be opposed to any slush funds that were created with taxpayer dollars?

I'm here to talk about TANF dollars and how we can make sure that TANF dollars reach

Right. Because nobody on in the House Republican side wants to talk about the slush fund

the intended recipients.

that President Trump tried to set up with taxpayer dollars. And I think that that's the issue that we keep raising, is this hypocrisy. right that you were willing to give a four point five trillion dollar tax cut for in tax cuts that primarily benefited billionaires in fact you had uh earlier you said something about you know we don't want there were six hundred and fifty college students that improperly accessed this money well there were less than eight hundred less than eight hundred billionaires who benefited from those tax cuts and you guys didn't seem to have a problem then but we don't believe in fraud in fact i believe that democrats uh uh had an amendment uh in mark-up that would require the hhs to search for and punish tantra fraud when states pay contractors as subgrantees or mislead the state or conspire to fraudulently use public funds did you vote for or against that amendment

i'm i'm sorry say that again

did you vote for or against the amendment that would required h. s. s. to go after uh and punish TANF off and states pay contractors as subgrantees who mislead the state

there were number of amendments um not remember the details of every single amendment but there were amendments that were not germane uh i know

this sounds like very germane it's TANF it's FAUD

well it sound it's it can sound like it that's right but that doesn't

it sounds

always mean that it it is actually germane to to the legislation

uh TANF fraud, go after contractors and some contractors that engage in fraud, that sounds pretty germane to TANF.

Well, I mean, the legislation,

OK.

I I would say the legislation as written i- is an effort to make sure and and it's

But you're not you're willing to go after families,

what doesn't get it

but you're not willing to go after contractors and subcontractors. This is once again the hypothesis.

This doesn't go after families.

If we were trying to save money in the TANF program, we would want to also go after the contractors and subcontractors who engage in the fraud because that would then recover the money for the program which was the issue that you were asking about is why don't we recover

what's even better is i mean we can prevent

the money

the money from ending up in the wrong places

but the wrong places would be

in the first place rather than the pay in chase

the wrong places would include the contractors and subcontractors i don't know why we republicans are always they are they are always willing to go after the families but they're not willing to go after the corporations and the actual f- f- f- f- f- f- f- f- who can engage in it in big time. And we should not let anybody off, and that's what you're why- willing to do. And that's why we keep going back to where there is the willingness to engage like with the slush fund. You don't like a slush fund here, but you're willing to turn your head and not pay attention to when it's a slush fund with taxpayer money that President Trump fabricates. And in fact, the judge in that case has reopened it because she needs to question whether there were these grievous allegations of whether the court was misled and whether that settlement was premised on a deception. She also pointed out that the idea that you could have a settlement, a separate settlement, that does not allow the IRS to engage in audits and the other matters, whether that is at all related to this case. So there were two problems with what happened in that court. Was one there was collusion and corruption. And then a slush fund And then something that I, that Ways and Means should care about, which is we are not gonna let the IRS engage in basic audits of the president, his family, and their businesses. And that wasn't even related to even the allegations in the case. I would think that all Ways and Means would be, what was the word, uh, openly, uh,

Deeply offended.

deep- deeply offended. all ways and means members would be deeply offended for a settlement which prevented the agency that you oversee from conducting its basic business. Uh, I'm s- uh, mister, is there anything, Ryan, can remember that you would like to add to this discussion? Uh, because I believe I am the last Democrat who will ask questions today. Was there any clarifications you would like to make to the discussion?

well i've heard a lot of numbers high numbers but i also understand that the medium tariff benefit is actually six thousand six hundred dollars a year that that that that is the median that the highest tariff benefit for a family of three in the country is sixteen thousand four hundred forty dollars. And so, the fraud has to be coming from some place other than individuals who are eligible beneficiaries of TANF. And those are the individuals who need the most help. those are the individuals who actually need the help. And that's where we need to focus on getting help to those individuals and not allowing crooks to siphon off the money that is supposed to go to benefit here.

Right, and that's the issue of what the your the amendment was intended to do, was to go after those who were actually uh ripping taxpayers off and the millions of dollars. And uh the they they refused to uh pass that democratic amendment. And I take it you voted for that, Mr. Bresci-

Yes, both myself and Representative, you did too. Had amendments, had amendments. And of course those amendments were not accepted as part of the bill.

Uh, so, and the other piece about this is not just that who you're going after, but who, to whom are you gr- granting this, these broad powers? And uh, and I think that there is a huge concern about who is gonna have control over the direction. And is it gonna be uh the Trump administration to act in a manner that is even-handed or not? And that w- I I think that concern is is well subs- is substantiated based on the manner in which this administration has uh used the Department of Justice, the USDA, name a department, and he has used it to go after anybody he feels is not sufficiently in line with his policy priorities and that is different than being the president of the United States. Uh, so Representative Davis, uh, I really wanna thank you for bringing up the issues that, uh, you have today and if there's nothing else, I'll yield back.

Mister Langworthy, you're recognized.

Uh, Madam Chair, I have more questions,

Mister Jack.

Likewise, Madam Chair, no questions.

Well, gentlemen, I believe everyone who wanted to ask questions has asked questions. I believe my, as I said earlier, Miss Houcher, I mean, excuse me, um, Miss Fischbach asked my main question, but Representative Smith, is there anything else you wanna say about the concerns that GAO raised which caused you to um get engaged in this issue.

Suffice it to say that GAO identified significant shortcomings. This bill is tailored to take those studies and uh legislatively make the changes that need to be made. Uh, uh, President Biden's team suggested and and called for the two hundred percent of of federal poverty threshold as well. uh that that idea has been around for some time uh proposed but uh by the both administrations biden and trump uh have have requested similar dynamics uh uh across uh tanaf in being able to overall make sure that the folks who need it the most receive the help they need so that we can be more effective with taxpayer dollars i i heard you know bipartisan interest here uh this evening uh uh pointing pointing to that and and it's but it it it's not always big fraudsters that are uh that are the situation here it it's the the unintended aspects of dollars going to someone who doesn't need the help like with a a liberal art private liberal arts college scholarship when their income exceeds uh a lot of various thresholds uh that we have talked about here um i'm glad they are getting an education that's a good thing that's not what pan of dollars are for thank you i go back

thank you very much for summarizing that so well you gentlemen are excused

thank you ma'am chairman could i remain here for the amendment discussion

do you wanna remain for the amendment certainly

yeah ok

Interesting.

Who do we have?

He's definitely he's definitely

Mr. Davis.

Yes.

Mr. Davis, um, my understanding is you're the only person who has an amendment, so if you want to go ahead while you're there, uh, present your amendment.

Um, yes. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

We wore everybody else out.

We have two amendments, uh, one t- um, myself and one with Representative Junette Chu. And I support both of them to address the tennis broad offer today by Representative Chu and myself. I wanna commend the leadership of my colleague, Bennet Thompson from Mississippi, who has fought for years to get state and federal officials to investigate the misuse of TANF in Mississippi. And as ranking member of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over TANF, I am acutely aware of misuse of millions of TANF dollars from struggling families in Mississippi by the Bread Favorie and other organizations. And I'm shocked that this fails to address the greatest source of fraud in TANF. And unlike any other law, Republicans insisted on a statutory prohibition on federal oversight that limits TANF transparency, fraud, and detection, and enforcement. If the bill's goal is to make TANF accountable, then the rules committee should unequivocally support the true amendment of our bill to require a Fraud Control Unit to search for and punish untrackers and subgrantees committing tennis fraud and give HHS specific narrow power to target the real source of fraud in tennis, HR eighty-eight seventy-two, which willfully ignores the and overwhelmingly includes no fraud-fide information. In addition, my amendment would improve congressional oversight to limit political weaponization of tantra-fraud allegations. In January, the Department of Health and Human Services will promptly throw ten billion dollars in critical social services from five states my state of Illinois, as well as California, Colorado, Minnesota, and New York. They never presented any evidence or even an example of fraud or errors in any of those states, leading to a court-ordered restraining order against the priest. My amendment would require HHS to answer basic congressional questions about the Trump administration's freeze, including internal communications about the real cause of the freeze, the various contracts HHS has violated, in addition to the statutory provisions and how the freeze is being implemented. Congress must make sure we have this information before we trust HHS to implement any change to TANF. particularly the broad new authority to penalize states where they judge errors in section two, providing the administration with new undefined authority to modify TANF rules for states without answering congressional questions. That's a dangerous precedent of letting the executive branch take no Congress when implementing the laws Congress enacted, governing mandatory funding streams for all states, H R eighty-eight seventy-two would not result in a single fraud prosecution or payment recovery. Further, H R eighty-eight seventy-two fails to address the great source of fraud in Tannert. I would urge you to make in order the amendments my colleagues and I have offered to add real broad guiding provision to the bill and hold the administration accountable if they do not use tennis to help the family. So I thank you Madam Chairman and and feel bad.

Is there anyone else seeking to testify on today's agenda? Seeing none, this close as the hearing portion. Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. Anyone want, have any questions for Mister Davis?

I just wanna thank Mister Davis for his testimony and uh,

Thank you. I'm sorry. Anyone else? I apologize. Thank you. K.

It's thank you,

It

Mister Davis, for your amendment and as we discussed earlier,

Is there anyone else seeking to testify on today's agenda? Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting. ok good thank you the chair will be in receipt of a motion from the general woman from indiana mishawachan thank you so

Madam Chair, I move the committee grant H R eight six four six, the Agricultural Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agency Appropriations Act twenty twenty seven, a structured rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations for their respective designees. The rule provides that the bill shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause two, or clause five A of rule twenty-one. The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the rules committee report amendments on block described in section three, and pro forma amendments described in section four. Each amendment shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section four of the rule, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the Rules Committee report or amendments on block described in section three of the rule. The rule provides that the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee may offer amendments on block consisting of amendments printed in the Rules Committee report not earlier disposed of. Amendments on block shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for twenty minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section four of the rule and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question the rule provides that the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to ten pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of debate the rule provides one motion to recommit the rule further provides for consideration of hr seven seven two six the stop child care scams act of twenty twenty six under a closed rule The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and Workforce now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print one one nine dash three two shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on and workforce or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H R seven eight nine two, the no aid for ghost students act of twenty twenty six, under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on education and workforce now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print one one nine dash three one, Shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on education workforce or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H R eight eight seven two, the preventing waste, fraud and abuse in TANF act under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, now printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit.

Thank you very much. You have now heard the motion. is there any discussion or amendment to the rule

uh Madam Chair first i have two unanimous consent requests uh one uh i have you asked unanimous consent to insert into the record written testimony from resident commissioner hernandez in support of his amendment uh number eighty one to hr eighty six forty six which emphasizes the need for nutrition assistance uh program funding for puerto rico

without objection

and then i asked unanimous consent to insert in the record uh written testimony from representative binam in support of her amendments to hr eighty six

Without objection.

And Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order, amendment number three to HR eighty eight seventy two, offered by Representative Chu, which strikes sections two of the bill, and inserts the text of HR twenty one O eight, the TANF State Expenditure Integrity Act, to prevent and address intentional misuse of TANF funds by contractors or sub-grantees. Madam Chair, I agree that more should be done to investigate and prosecute individuals who defraud the TANF program. That said, I'm especially concerned with section two of the underlying bill which grants the Trump Admin- administration too much power that could be used to withhold funds to states for political reasons. Instead I'm proposing that we swap that section out with language that would appropriate ten million dollars per year to create a new TANF program integrity union unit tasked with combating fraud paired with enhanced criminal penalties for those who intentionally defraud TANF and I urge a yes vote on my amendment.

Is there further discussion on Mister McGovern's amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye. Aye.

Those opposed say no. No. In the opinion share the no's have it.

No.

As for roll

Mister McGovern requests a roll call vote. Roll call vote. The clerk will call the roll.

Mrs. Fischbach, Mrs. Fischbach, no, Mister Norman.

No.

Mister Roy.

no

mister roy no mr. Saljan mr. Saljan no mr. langworthy mr. langworthy no mr. scott

no

mr. scott no mr. griffith

no

mr. griffith no mr. jack

no

mr. jack no mr. mcgovern mr. mcgovern i am miss galvin miss galvin i am mr. nagoose

aye aye

mr. nagoose i am miss larsha fernandez

aye

miss larsha fernandez i am madam chair

no

madam chair no

the clerk will report the total

four yeas eight nays

and the no's have it the amendment is not agreed to

then Chair, I have another amendment to the rule. Um, I move the committee make an order amendment number thirteen to HR eighty six forty six, offered by Representative Bynum, which prohibits the use of funds made available by this act to implement restrictions to SNAP eligibility, made in the one uh big beautiful bill. Madam Chair, since the big ugly bill was an act of last July, more than three point five million people have lost their SNAP benefits. In twelve states where data is available, seven hundred thousand kids, seven hundred thousand kids have lost their benefits. Let me say that again. This Republican Congress has forced seven hundred thousand children off of nutrition benefits to pay for tax breaks for billionaires. And those who are and and those are just the states where data is available. When you add in the other thirty-eight states, that number must be astronomical. And things are about to get a whole hell of a lot worse as the full bill is implemented.

OK.

Uh, so this amendment is simple. It says no funds can be used to implement the big ugly bill's snap cuts I hope Rep- my Republican, uh, colleagues will vote yes on this amendment to make sure that kids, seniors and veterans continue to receive SNAP benefits. And I yield back.

Mister McGovern yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question's on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say no. No. In the opinion and

No. No.

share the no's have it the amendment's now agreed to.

Go ahead, sir, for a roll call, Madam Chair.

Mister McGovern requests a roll call vote. The clerk will call the roll.

mrs. fischbach

no

mrs. fischbach no mr. norman mr. roy mr. roy no mrs. houchen

no

mrs. houchen no mr. langworthy

no

mr. langworthy no mr. scott

no

mr. scott no mr. griffith mr. griffith no mr. jack mr. jack no mr. mcgovern

aye

mr. mcgovern i am miss ganlin

aye

miss ganlin i am mr. neguse

aye

mr. neguse i am miss leger fernandez

aye

it's ledger fernandez i am madam chair

no

madam chair no

clerk report the total

four yeas eight nays

the no's have it the amendments not agreed to Are there fur- is there further discussion?

Yeah, uh, Madam Chair, I have one final amendment to the rule. I move the committee add a new section to the rule providing for immediate consideration of HRA eighty nine fourteen the no taxpayer funded settlement slash fund act of twenty twenty six under a closed rule, debatable for one hour, equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the committee and judiciary. Madam Chair, President Trump, uh, is is is trying to, uh, commandeer nearly one point eight billion dollars in taxpayer funds to bankroll a slush fund for January sixth, cough beaters and a grieved mag of foot soldiers.

Mm-hmm.

This is an absurd and corrupt example of self of self dealing, suing his own government to get taxpayer funded settlement, uh, and blanket immunity. Now after outcry from both sides of the aisle, the DOJ says it will follow a court's order pausing the fund.

Yeah.

Great. They're following a court order for a change. But that's not enough. Even Republican Senator Kennedy acknowledged that this is not enough, saying quote, I appreciate them saying that, but they don't have a choice." He goes on to say, it doesn't take, it doesn't tell me whether they're planning to appeal, it doesn't tell me whether the administration is backing off the idea, or it doesn't tell me anything." Well, I'll tell you that Donald Trump's MAGA foot soldiers think of of this, what what would Don- Donald Trump's MAGA foot soldiers think of this, Boz? Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Prabwes, convicted of seditious conspiracy for his role on January sixth, Told they reported quote, " This isn't an abandonment." They simply state they're gonna wait two weeks. I believe even if this fund is killed in the courts, or at a congressional level, the President will find a way, end quote. Madam Chair, that should be all my Republican colleagues need to hear. And Congress needs to step up and stop this nonsense for good. That's why we should consider ranking member Raskin's bill. And I urge a yes vote, and I will yield back the balance of my time.

is there further debate or discussion on the amendment from mister mcgovern hearing none the questions on the amendment all those in favor signify by saying aye

aye aye

those opposed say no

no

no in the opinion you chair the no's have it the amendment is not through

uh ask for a roll call then if you

mister mcgovern requests a roll call the clerk will call the roll

missus fishback

no

missus fishback and mr. Norman mr. Roy mr. roy no mrs. houchin mrs. houchin no mr. langworthy

no

mr. langworthy no mr. scott

no

mr. scott no mr. griffith

no

mr. griffith no mr. jack

no

mr. jack no mr. mcgovern

aye

mr. mcgovern aye miss scanlon

aye

miss scanlon aye mr. neguse

aye

mr. neguse aye miss miss ledger fernandez

aye

is ledger fernandez aye madam chair

no

madam chair no

clerk will report the total

four yeas eight nays

the no's have it um the amendment is not agreed to is there further discussion or amendment hearing no further discussion the question is on the motion from the gentlewoman from indiana all those in favor signify by saying aye aye those opposed say no

no no

in the opinion chair that ayes have it the motion is agreed to

yes we'll roll call

mr. mcgovern requests a roll call the clerk will call the roll

mr. fishbach

yes

mr. Fischbach aye mr. Norman mr. Roye

uh

mr. Roye aye mrs. Houchen mrs. Houchen aye mr. Langworthy sir Langworthy aye mr. Scott mr. Scott aye mr. Griffith mr. Griffith aye mr. Jack mr. Jack aye mr. McGovern

no

mr. McGovern no miss Scanlon

no

miss Scanlon no mr. Nigueaus mr. Nigueaus no miss Ledger-Fernandez

no

miss Ledger-Fernandez no madam chair

aye

madam chair aye

the clerk will report the total

eight yeas four nays

The ayes have it, the motion to report is agreed to. Representative Halchen will be managing the rule for the majority.

And I will for the min- uh minority.

Mister McGovern for the minority. Without objection, the committee is adjourned.